The Law Society of Upper Canada has brought its advertising and marketing rules into the 21st century, giving lawyers more leeway to brand their services, so long as their claims meet standards.
The Law Society of Upper
Canada has brought
its advertising and marketing
rules into the 21st century,
giving lawyers more leeway
to brand their services, so long
as their claims meet standards.
“We think it’s time to get out
of the business of looking at letterhead
and thinking that we
have, by virtue of those kinds
of formalistic provisions, done
a whole lot to protect the public,”
law society professional
regulation committee chairwoman
Linda Rothstein told
October Convocation. While
benchers adopted the new rules
in principle during that session,
a finalized version of the
new rules was accepted at their
November meeting after being
touched up by the LSUC’s rules
drafter. Similar rules for paralegals
also were adopted.
According to the committee’s
October report, the new
rules of professional conduct
“significantly reduce the length
- but not the substantive instruction
- of the current
rules on advertising and marketing
legal services.” The report
refers to the new approach
as “more purposive.”
Among the committee’s
reasons for reconsidering rule
three of the rules of professional
conduct was the fact that
the law society deals with few
complaints regarding advertising
and a recent Competition
Bureau report suggesting law
societies lift unnecessary advertising
restrictions.
The report suggests that
many of the existing rules shield
lawyers from competition, rather
than guarding the public. It cites
as examples prohibitions against
using a judge’s name in a firm
name, comparing services with
other lawyers, and use of the
words “from . . . minimum . . .
and up” in fee advertisements.
The report suggests the law
society should base its approach
in this area on making sure advertising
and marketing claims
are not false, that they’re not
misleading or deceptive, and
that they are in the public interest
and in line with lawyers’
professional responsibilities.
“The current rule includes
all of these concepts,” the report
states. “Much of the detail
in the rule, however, appears
to only elaborate on these
concepts, which has the effect
of ‘cluttering’ the rule, and in
some respects, making it appear
arcane.”
Some benchers took exception
to the rules’ approach to
lawyers’ claims of being an “expert”
in a certain area of law.
The law society needs to change
the rule to bar lawyers from saying
they are an expert unless they
have been designated a certified
specialist, said Bencher Bob Aaron,
a member of the professional
regulation committee.
“Law society staff have taken
the view, and so did the committee
over my objections, that
it’s okay for a lawyer to say he
or she is an expert without oversight
by the society,” Aaron told
Convocation. “I have a great
deal of difficulty with the society’s
position because I don’t
think the public understands
the differences between C.S. after
a lawyer’s name, indicating
certified specialist, and expert.”
Rothstein said the committee
decided against Aaron’s
suggestion “for a variety of
complicated reasons.”
“We weren’t persuaded that
we should include a per se prohibition
on the use of the word
‘expert,’” she said.
Convocation is expected to
revisit Aaron’s recommendation
next month.
