Legal practitioners are guided by certain rules in the course of their profession. In Nigeria, these rules are codified in the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 2023 and one of such rules touches on the subject of advertisement and solicitation.
Advertising by lawyers has long been a tricky issue with multiple restrictions. Today, the situation still isn’t good enough and that almost any rules limiting advertising by professionals go beyond legitimate consumer protection.
 |
| AI generated image of a lawyer with a megaphone, presumed to be advertising his services in a market |
Concerning the concept of advertising and soliciting for legal practitioners in Nigeria, the general rule is that a Lawyer can advertise or promote his legal practice provided that
- It is fair and proper in the circumstances; and
- It complies with the provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct;
Rule 39(1) RPC
A Lawyer is however prohibited from advertising if:
- It is inaccurate or likely to mislead
- It is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or in the judicial system or bring the legal Profession into disrepute
- It makes comparison with or criticizes other Lawyers or other Professionals/Professions.
- It includes any statement about the quality of the Lawyer’s work, the size or success of his practice.
- It is so frequent as to cause annoyance to those to whom it is directed.
- A lawyer is prohibited from advertising himself or using agents/touts to do so.
SOLICITING FOR Professional Employment
A Lawyer is also prohibited from doing acts amounting to unnecessarily seeking to be engaged by clients by any of the following:
1. Pasting circulars, handbills and advertisement through touts or by personal communication or interview
2. Furnishing, permitting or inspiring Newspaper Radio or TV comments in relation to his Law practice
3. Procuring his photograph to be published in connection with matters he has handled or the manner of their conduct
4. Permitting inspiring sound recording in relation to his practice of Law.
5. Similar self-aggrandizement.
ACTS THAT DO NOT AMOUNT TO ADVERTISING
1. Introduction by himself or another of his name, address, profession and educational qualification
2. To publish in a reputable Law List or Directory a brief biographical or informative data of himself including his name, personal bio-data, legal teaching position, National Honours, etc. See R. 39(4) of the RPC. The reason why the above will not amount to advertising is that they do not contain anything about the quality of his practice.
3. To cause to be printed on his note-papers, envelops and visiting cards his name, address and academic qualification including the titles ‘Barrister-at-Law’, ‘Barrister and Solicitor’ etc and any National Honours. See R.40 of the RPC
4. If he writes a book or article on Law, he may add his professional qualification after his name. see R. 42 of the RPC
5. He can send Notices to his client or put an advertisement in a Newspaper or Journal of a change in his office address or telephone number. It should not relate to the quality of his practice or success. See R. 43 of the RPC.
6. A Lawyer, who is specialized in an area of Law and readily available as associate/consultant, may make a brief and dignified announcement to Lawyers in his locality only or publish in his Local Journal. However, it should not amount to improperly attract business. See R. 44 of the RPC.
SIGNS AND NOTICES
Any Sign or Notice displayed as to his legal practice must only:
1. Contain his name and professional qualification
2. Not be too large (big Sign Board) but should be of reasonable size, and 3. Be of sober design not too brightly coloured; See R. 41 of the RPC
PRESS, RADIO AND TELEVISION PARTICIPATION BY LAWYERS
A lawyer can write articles for publication, participate in radio and television programmes where he gives information on the Law. However, he shall not accept employment from any such Press, Radio or Television programmes to advise on inquiries in respect of their individual rights. See R. 46(1) of the RPC.
Instigating Controversy OR LITIGATION
The general rule is that a Lawyer should not ferment strife or instigate litigation without being consulted, profer advice or bring a law suit. See R. 47 of the RPC.
An EXCEPTION to this rule is in the case of close relations or of a trust where he is the trustee, then he can take up a case even without being consulted. See R. 47(1) of the RPC.
A Lawyer should not do any of the following amounting to instigation of controversy or litigation with a view of been engaged as Lawyer in respect of the matters instigated:
1. Search Lands Registry or other Registries for defects
2. Seek out Claimants in respect of personal injuries or any other cause of
action.
3. Aid or encourage an agent or any person to follow up on accidents,
4. Agree to offer or offer rewards to any person who by his position/employment is likely to influence legal work in his favour. See R. 47 (2) of the RPC.
Trial Publicity or the Sub Judice RULE
The general rule is that a Lawyer or a Law Firm engaged in or associated with the prosecution or defence of any trial anticipated or pending in a Court shall not make any statement or participate in making extra judicial statement calculated to prejudice or interfere with the fair trial of a matter/judgment or sentence. See R. 33 of the RPC.
Legal Ethics and Advertising in an Electronic Age
A cursory survey of search terms and sponsored links shows that Canadian lawyers are starting to play this game. The search terms “province of Ontario personal injury lawyer” and “brain injury Canada” each produces one Canadian law firm. The term “immigration lawyers Canada” generates quite a long Canadian list, although some of the advertisers look to be consultants rather than law firms.
Whether or not a click produces business for the advertiser doesn’t matter; the advertiser pays anyway. This creates opportunity for the cyberspace equivalent of sending pizzas at midnight to the girlfriend who dumped you. Just spend the day clicking on the link of a law firm you don’t like and stick it with a big bill for nothing.
Adam Liptak, writing in The New York Times (“Competing for Clients, and Paying by the Click,” Oct. 15, 2007), quotes various experts who believe that sponsored-link advertising results from a baffling economic anomaly: that lawyers tend to charge the same amount as each other for their services. Since lawyers don’t compete on price, suggest these experts, they compete in other ways, like bidding for placement on Google. Liptak also notes that Google advertising is narrowly focused. There is a big difference between putting an advertisement in a general circulation newspaper and putting one next to the results of the search term “truck accident lawyer” or “immigration lawyer Canada.” (Liptak notes that you can place a sponsored link next to “Britney Spears nude” for a mere 21 cents a click. It is unclear what legal services are relevant to this search term.)
I believe that the legal professions needs to re-examine the rules, especially those limiting advertising — to ensure those rules serve the public good and do not go too far in restricting competition. Surely it isn’t too impertinent to wonder whether all the rules are necessary, whether any of them are informed more by self-interest than by public interest, and whether changing or dropping some of these rules mightn’t lead to wins both for the overall economy and for consumers individually.”
Some restrictions on advertising by lawyers “go beyond simply preventing false or misleading advertising and, as a result, raise competition concerns in light of the numerous benefits advertising brings to consumers.”
Most law societies do not allow a lawyer to claim to be a specialist or expert in a particular field unless he has specialized certification.
Most regulations do not allow lawyers, in their advertisements, to compare their fees or the quality of their services to those of other lawyers.
The bureau reports comments, “When consumers cannot compare the prices for legal services, there is little or no incentive for lawyers to compete on price, thereby raising the costs to consumers.”
It may be a new electronic age, with links on Google replacing billboards on highways, but the underlying issues, ethical and economic, remain the same. Why artificially limit advertising, particularly with limitations that help stifle desirable price competition? In particular, why limit comparative advertising about price and quality of services? Click away on sponsored links all you like; the old-fashioned problems remain.
Post a Comment