403

UNPROFESSIONAL PRACTICES AND THE PUBLICINTEREST

Advertising specialities and why not?

Professor Ahmad Ibrahim, University of Malaya

In the home of the Common Law, advertisingwas frowned upon for the Professions. In Hughesv Architects Registration Council [1957) 2 QB550, 559 Lord Goddard CJ said:

'There are rules of conduct which allprofessional man must observe. Refrainingfrom advertising would, I think, clearly beone.'

In regard to the legal profession Scott LJ said inRe A Solicitor [1945] 2 All ER 445, 447:

'Touting for clients is, like advertising,fundamentally inconsistent with the interestof the public and with the honour of theprofession. The function of a solicitor is toadvise or negotiate or fight for a client, butonly if retained. The client may seek himbut he must not seek the client.'

The professional view is also opposed toadvertising. This is set out in the codes ofconduct. A consulting engineer:

'shall not either by himself or through anyperson or firm canvass, advertise for or solicitprofessional employment.'

An architect must 'not advertise or solicit profes-sional employment'. A medical practitioner:

'should not sanction or acquiesce in anythingwhich commends or directs attention to hisprofessional skill, knowledge, services orqualifications _ or be associated with thosewho procure or sanction such advertising orpublicity.'

It is contrary to professional etiquette for abarrister:

'to do or cause or allow·to be done anything

with the primary motive of personal adver-tisement or anything calculated to suggestthat it is so motivated.'

The General Dental Council say that it is:

'contrary to the public interest and discredit-able to the profession of dentistry for anyregistered dentist to advertise or canvass,whether directly or indirectly, for the purposeof obtaining patients or promoting his ownprofessional advantage.' •

Even a solicitor (despite his ,title) :

'shall not directly or indirectly apply for orseek instructions for professional business ordo or permit in the carrying of his practiceany act or thing which can reasonably beregarded as touting or advertising or ascalculated to attract business unfairly,'

The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyorssummed up the position in their evidence to theMonopolies Commission when they said that the

rule:'is believed to be a fundamental rule of allthe professions and the profession of theland inherited it from the accepted practiceand tradition of the older professions.'

One reason for the rule might have been thedisreputable history of the advertising industry.The peddling of quack remedies through advertise-ment caused mistrust and disgust in the medicalprofession dating back to the days of the GreatPlague in London in 1665. Daniel Defoe in hisJournal of the Plague Year described how thereappeared in the streets of London a rash ofposters proclaiming:

'Infallible preventive pills against the Plague.

404

Never failing preservatives against theInfection. Sovereign Cordials against thecorruption of the Air.'

Patent remedies and sovereign specifics are stilladvertised even today but advertising has lostmuch of its former disrepute.

In their evidence before the Royal Commis-sion the Law Society stated that the specialrelationship of trust between the lawyer and hisclient required the lawyer to refrain from someof the practices acceptable in the market place:

'In particular while professional menconstantly compete with one another forability they do not compete by way ofadvertisement and other methods familiarand unobjectionable in the business world.The society believes that self-advertisementby individual solicitors is wholly inconsistentwith the proper relationship betweensolicitor and client.'

Another objection to support the non-advertising rule relates to the cost of advertising.As the Bar Council said:

'If barristers were permitted to advertise, theadvantages would go, not to the bestqualified, but to the barrister with the longestpurse and the least scruples. If the choiceof barristers came to be made by the generalpublic on t ie strength of advertisement, thechoice would tend to be more ill-informedand the public not so well served as atpresent. If it became common for barristersto advertise and all were compelled to fallin with the practice, the costs of a barrister'sservices would inevitably go up.'

The strict rules against advertising in the legalprofession have been somewhat relaxed inEngland. Rule I of the Solicitors' Practice Rulesforbids the inviting of instructions for work,advertising and touting. In the pa t this meantfor instance that a solicitor who appeared onradio or television or wrote an article in the laypress could give his name or profession but notboth. This rule has now been abolished. Inthe past a solicitor was not permitted to acceptwork where he knew he had been specificallynamed by a lay-referral agency; the client hadsimply to be shown a list of names of local prac-titioners and left to make hi own inevitablyuninformed choice. Thi rule ha likewi e beenabolished. A solicitor may till not advertisein the lay press the opening of a new office andmay place only one adverti ement in the lay pre

of a change of address of an existing office. Untilrecently a solicitor's entry in a directory or lawlist had to be confined to his name, address anddescription. Now he may also state the workhe undertakes (or does not undertake) providedthat this does not amount to a statement that thesolicitor or firm specialises in any particular typeof work.

The Law Society in England has also done agreat deal to inform the public about the servicesthat the lawyers can provide. It has producedfilm strips, wall-charts 'and a book for use inschools, paper back books in a series 'It's YourLaw' designed for <theman in the street and a setof free leaflets under the general title 'See aSolicitor'. It has a Senior Officer responsible forprofessional and public relations and a chiefpress officer with supporting staff. Advertisinghas also been used to make legal aid better knownto the public. In 1976 the Law Society permittedanother form of advertising through its publicationof the referral or Solicitor's Lists to indicate thefirms that undertake legal aid work.

It is inevitable that this trend of liberalisingthe rules against advertising will continue. Res-trictions on advertising by solicitors were thesubject of two reports by the Monopolies Com-mission in England. That in 1970 (cmnd 4463)suggested that restrictions on advertising shouldnot be such as to prevent:

'publicity by individual practitioners that isinformative in the sense that primarily itprovides information about the availibility ofservices.'

In 1976 the Commission went further. It re-marked that advertising was also valuable for thepurpose of promoting competition and found thatthe present restrictions on advertising by solicitorswere against the public interest on the groundsthat-

(a) they prevented the public. and potentialnew entrants to the profession. being giveninformation about the services offered byindividual solicitors or firms of solicitors;(b) they were likely to have a disadvan-tageous effect on the competitiveness andefficiency of the profe ion generally. on theintroduction of innovatory methods andservices. and on the setting up of newpractices;(c) they might in some degree enhance theimportance of other less open and challenge-able methods of attracting business anddetract from the public confidence in theprofessi n.

The Monopolies Commission recommendedthat the current rules prohibiting advertising andtouting should be replaced by a rule whichpermitted any solicitor in England and Wales touse such publicity as he might think fit. providedthat -

(a) no advertisement. circular or other formof publicity used by a solicitor should claimfor his practice superiority in any respectover any or all other solicitors' practices;(b) such publicity should not contain anyinaccuracies or misleading statements;(c) while advertisements. circulars and otherpublicity might make clear the intention ofthe solicitor to seek custom. they should notbe of a character that could reasonably beregarded as likely to bring the profession intodisrepute.

The findings of the Monopolies Commissionhave been strongly criticised by the profession ona number of grounds. Chief among these arethe following -

(a) Individual advertising might have anadverse effect on the relationship of trustbetween solicitors and their clients andbetween solicitors themselves; it might alsohave a prejudicial effect on the discharge bysolicitors of their duties to the court.(b) Solicitors are not free agents in theirchoice of working methods. Much of whatthey do is governed by rules of the courtand the prices that they may charge .aresubject to independent review and tax~tIO~.The scope for innovation and cost saving IS

therefore limited' in consequence, the effectof competition,' enhanced by advertising,would not be to raise standards but toincrease overhead costs to the detriment ofthe smaller practice, the newcomer and theclient.(c) If advertising led to excessive ~~-petition with undercutting and unreah.shcoffers as to form of the service or the timeit would take there would follow a deteriora-tion in standards and in the reputation ofthe profession as a whole.

Meanwhile in June 1977 the United StatesSupreme Court held in Bates and Osteen v StateBar of Arizona 53 L Ed 2nd 810 that Americanlawyers could undertake some forms of adver-tising. In that case two lawyers ~ad o~nedwhat they called a legal clinic in Phoenix. Arizona,aiming to provide legal services at modera~e feesto per ons of moderate income who did notqualify for legal aid. They accepted onl~ routinecases such as uncontested divorces for which costs

405

could be kept down by use of para-legal workers,automatic typewriters and standardized forms andoffice procedures. After operating for two yearsthey advertised in a local newspaper that theywere offering 'legal services at very reasonablefees' and listed their fees for uncontested divorces,uncontested non-business bankrupties and othermatters. Disciplinary proceedings were broughtagainst them but the United States Supreme Court(by a majority) held that the blanket suppressionof advertising by lawyers violated the Free Speechclause of the First Amendment and that lawyersmight constitutionally advertise their prices forroutine legal services. The majority expresslyrejected all the well-known traditional argumentsagainst advertising by members of a profession -that such advertising would have an adverse effecton professionalism, would be inherently mis-leading, would have bad effects on the adminis-tration of justice, would produce undesirableeconomic effects, would have an adverse effect onthe quality of legal services and would be difficultto police. It did hold however that such adver-tising if false, deceptive or misleading, couldcontinue to be restrained and that it could bemade subject to reasonable restrictions on thetime, place and manner of such advertising. Thecourt expressly did not deal with advertisingrelating to the quality of legal services nor withpersonal solicitation of business by lawyers ortheir agents, for instance in hospitals or on thesite of an accident. The minority opinion wasthat advertising of professional services differedfrom the advertising of tangible products in thatit had greater potential for deception and wasmore difficult to control effectively.

The Royal Commission on Legal Services inEngland has re-examined all the arguments forand against individual advertising by solicitors.They stressed that the more important argumentis the interest of the client. Prospective clientsshould be provided with the fullest informationabout the availability of legal services that is con-sonant with the maintenance of high standards ofprofessional work and probity. In their report theystate:

'In our view, the present rule prohibiting allpersonal advertising by solicitors is toorestrictive. There are circumstances in whichadvertising by individual solicitors is appro-priate. Among the examples we have inmind are the newly-established firm or therecently qualified specialist. It is in theirpotential clients' interests as well as theirown that they should make themselves

406known in their locality. A solicitor who is indirect competition with non-solicitors, suchas banks who are themselves permitted toadvertise, should be enabled to compete onequal terms. The freedom of a client'schoice should lead to competition amongsolicitors in offering high standards andreasonable prices; the effects are notthe same as those of competitive advertising.

We have already acknowledged the valueof referral lists and corporate advertising,and the steps recently taken by the LawSociety to enable and encourage local lawsocieties to publish in the press the namesand addresses of local solicitors and the typesof work they undertake. Two members ofthe Commission would prefer in this way tochannel all advertising, including advertisingon behalf of individual firms, through locallaw societies. We are also aware that theLaw Society now permits solicitors toannounce in the press the establishment ofnew practices and branch offices, amalgama-tions, retirements, changes of address,changes of opening hours and telephonenumbers and that the number of announce-ments permitted has recently been increased.Furthermore, the Law Society hasrecently allowed solicitors opening newor branch officers to send a circularletter to, .and establish personal contactwith, the agencies who receive copiesof a legal aid solicitors list, thereby enablingthe agencies to keep the list up to date. Wewelcome all these developments, which haveoccurred since this Commission was firstestablished; they will undoubtedly increasethe flow of information that is available toadvisory agencies and to the public.Nevertheless, despite these improvements,we are not convinced that these arrangementsprovide all the information that is requiredby members of the public at the time whenit is most needed.

A proper balance may be struck betweenthe need for the public to be adequatelyinformed and the need for the standards ofthe profession to be maintained, providedthat the primary purpose of advertisementsby solicitors is to inform the client aboutthe availability of legal services. We areaware that the purpose of advertising is toattract business and of the difficulty in dis-tinguishing informative advertising from thatwhich promotes the services of one solicitorat the expense of others. Nevertheless, the

good sense of the profession, combined withdetailed regulations as to the form andcontent of advertisements, should ensure thatthere is no abuse. We consider that, withthe restrictions which we discuss below, alimited amount of personal advertising willbe of benefit to the public.

In order that all advertising by individualsolicitors or firms shall be properly conduct-ed, advertisements should conform with theprinciples enunciated in 1976 by the Mono-polies Commission. Furthermore. the in-formation contained in such advertisementsshould be restricted to:(a) the name. address. telephone and telexnumbers, the telegraphic address and thedescription of the firm as "solicitors";(b) the names, professional and academicqualifications and recognised specialisms (ifany) of the partners and the dates of theirqualification as solicitors;(c) any other addresses from whicli' the firmcarries on practice;(d) the hours of opening;(e) the types of legal work which the firmis willing and not willing to undertake andwhether it is prepared to accept legal aidwork;(f) details of any fixed charges includingcharges based on an ad valorem scale;(g) knowledge of foreign languages includinglanguages of ethnic minorities;(h) if appropriate. the statement that abrochure of a factual type is available onrequest.

In order to avoid claims of superiorityand to forestall excessive competition. solici-tors should not be permitted to advertisepublicly the quality of their service. or thenumbers of staff other than partners, thefee income or case load of their firms. Thesame prohibition should also apply to in-formation about fees charged. unless theseare of a fixed amount. There should alsobe prohibited. to preserve the ethicalstandards of the profession and the con-fidentiality which clients are entitled toexpect from their legal advisers, any referenceto other clients of the firm and the workundertaken on their behalf or any mentionof reduced fees in consideration of thesolicitor being given other work.

The principles we have stated above carrythe implication that advertising by individualfirms of solicitors should be limited in scaleand aimed specifically at the public in their

particular locality. An appropriate mediumfor such advertisements is, therefore, thelocal press. Some of us would define thisterm to include London evening newspapersand also would see no reason why advertisingon local radio and television should beexcluded; others of us would prefer to treadmore cautiously. A large majority of usconsider that the public interest would notbe served by the use of forms of advertisingof which the cost could be borne only bywealthy firms.

All existing methods of control overadvertising would apply in the case of solici-tors, but the additional detailed regulationand monitoring required in the case of pro-fessional advertising would have to beundertaken by the Law Society. We re-commend, therefore, that the Law Societyshould formulate and introduce regulationsconcerning such things as the contents of theadvertisements, the form of text and typeface, the frequency with which they mayappear and the amount that may be expend-ed on advertising in any year. The LawSociety should also lay down regulationsconcerning the style and contents of thebrochures referred to below. We appreciatethat detailed guidelines of this type may takesome time to evolve; accordingly, we re-commend that, until firm and authoritativerules can be established in the light of ex-perience, all proposed advertisements andbrochures should be submitted to the LawSociety for approval as conforming with theguidelines we have suggested.

The Law Society should have the right tomonitor the claims made in advertisementsby solicitors. When a firm advertises thekinds of work that it is willing to undertake,it must be prepared to satisfy the LawSociety, on request and at any time, that ithas a partner or partners and staff who arecompetent to carry out such work. If suchclaims are found to be inaccurate or ex-aggerated, the Law Society should takeappropriate disciplinary action. If a solicitorclaims in an advertisement to be a specialistwhen he has not been so designated by theLaw Society this also should be treated as adisciplinary matter.

The Law Society permits solicitors tomake available to clients or potential clients,in their waiting rooms or on request factualbrochures giving the names of partners andsenior staff, with a brief description of their

407

departments, and also containing guidancefor a client showing how he can assist thefirm to deal promptly with his business, forexample by completing a questionnaire.Such brochures are valuable and should bewidely used, but the information containedin them should be subject to the same con-trols by the Law Society as public advertise-ments. The availability of information ofthis kind should be more widely publicisedin order that potential clients may confidentlyshop around and make an informed choiceof solicitor.'

In regard to barristers the Royal Commissionsaid:

'The amount of information about individualbarristers that is available to solicitors wasconsidered by the Monopolies Commissionin its report published in July 1976. TheCommission concluded that:

"In view of the special relationship be-tween solicitors and barristers, solicitorsare likely from their experience tohave adequate information about barris-ters, or to have the means ofobtaining it readily. Although we re-cognise that such information cannot becomplete we are satisfied that the restric-tions on advertising by barristers do notdeprive solicitors of useful informationwhich might otherwise be made availableto them or prevent them readily obtaininginformation. We conclude therefore thatthe restrictions are not harmful in respectof the availability to solicitors of informa-tion about barristers."

All practising barristers are listed, along withtheir date of call, in the Bar List which isrevised annually. There have recently beenintroduced "practice codes" which enablebarristers, if they so wish, to indicate thecategories of work which they are willing toundertake. Certain other indications maybe given in the Bar List about barristers'specialisations; for example, there is a listof members of the Central Criminal CourtMess, and a list of barristers conversant withforeign laws. We welcome the introduction ofthe practice codes; they have increased theamount of information available to solicitors.We recognise that an entry in the Bar Listindicates a barrister's willingness to under-take certain kinds of work and not the levelof his experience or competence. We seeno objection to this because of the specialist

408

knowledge that is available to solicitorsabout the quality and experience of counselwhom they may brief. A barrister whoholds himself out to do work that he is notcapable of handling will rapidly be detected.In serious cases the appropriate disciplinarysanctions should be applied.

For the reasons stated above, we do notthink that there is at present any need forthe Bar formally to designate any of itsmembers as specialists. Nevertheless, if itis found desirable to do so in the future wesee no objection, provided that the Senatemakes itself responsible for identifyingappropriate subjects for specialisation, forlaying down criteria and for grantingrecognition.

Barristers are prohibited from advertisingtheir services, with certain exceptions. Forexample, barristers who form a new set ofchambers, or whose chambers changeaddress, are permitted to send a circularletter to existing clients and to issue ageneral advertisement in legal journals whichstate merely the change of address. Thereis at present no means of making known inwhat departments of the law the membersof a set of new or existing chambers practise,save by the use of the practice codes in theBar List. We believe it reasonable thatinformation iving the general character ofthe work undertaken by the members of thechambers be included in circulars or adver-tisements relating to new chambers or tochanges or address. It is also reasonable toallow a barrister of standing who joins a setof chambers in a new locality or who returnsto private practice after a period elsewhereto indicate the type of work he is willing toundertake. We agree with the conclusionsof the Monopolies Commission that informa-tion about the services provided byindividual barristers may be obtained bythose who require it without resort to in-dividual advertising. As to the servicesprovided by the Bar as a whole, we can seeno objection to these being advertised,should the Senate so desire.'

There has been a trend towards recognisingspecialist skills among certain professions includ-ing the legal profession. The increasing com-plexity of legislation and case law means that nolonger can a lawyer be competent in handlingevery kind of problem. In the United Statethis trend was seen in the legal profession in the

seventies. In the first half of the decade, planswere developed and installed in California, Texas,New Mexico and Florida. The first two States'plans - in California and Texas - stressedcompetence and measured that competence byexaminations. The second two States - NewMexico and Florida - sought to grant access tothe public though self-designation or designationplans. Then came the decision in Bates v StateBar of Arizona, from which it was deduced thatlawyers have a constitutional right to tell thepublic truthfully what they do and the public hasa correlative right to know truthful informationthat will assist the public in finding a suitablelawyer. The American Bar Association hasadopted a Model Plan 'to assist in the delivery oflegal services to the public by ( 1) providinggreater access by the public to appropriate legalservices (2) identifying and improving the qualityand competence of legal services (3) providingappropriate legal services at reasonable cost.'

A Board of Legal Specialization of nine mem-bers is established by the State Supreme Court.One member is the Chairman of the AdvisoryCommission and all the others are lawyers. Theright of a recognised specialist to practice is notto be limited. A lawyer who is not a recognisedspecialist is not to be prevented from practisingin a specialist field. Individuals not firms are tobe recognised.

Participation in the programme shall 'be on acompletely voluntary basis. A lawyer may berecognised as a specialist in more than one fieldof law. The limitation on the number ofspecialities in which a lawyer may be recognisedas a specialist shall be determined only by suchpractical limits as are imposed by the require-ments of substantial involvement and such otherstandards as are established by the Board as aprerequisite to recognition as a specialist. Anylawyer recognised as a specialist under the Planshall be entitled to advertise that he or she is a'Board Recognised Specialist' in his or herspeciality to the extent permitted by the Code ofProfessional Responsibility of the State. ASpeciality Committee is established for eachspeciality to make recommendations to the Boardas to standards and to vet applicants. AnAdvisory Commission of five laymen isestablished to advise the Board.

An applicant for recognition must show asubstantial involvement in a speciality in theimmediately proceeding three years. An appli-cant must demonstrate participation in ContinuingLegal Education accredited for the speciality. An

applicant must satisfy a peer review requirementand recognition must be renewed after five years.Examinations may be required. Recognitionmay be suspended or revoked, subject to a rightto appeal to the Supreme Court.

In their report the Royal Commission on LegalServices have expressed the view that:

'the formal introduction of specializationinto the solicitor's profession will in the longterm, prove to be of significant benefit to thepublic'.

In their report they stated:

'We consider therefore, that a move shouldbe made in this direction and that initialaction by the Law Society might proceed onthe following lines. It will first be necessaryto define the categories of legal work whichare suitable for specialisation. We thinkthat the number of topics chosen should,initially, be small; progress thereafter shouldbe in stages and the list should be extendedin the light of experience. Particular attentionshould be paid to areas of work in whichthere is, at any given time, a shortage ofsolicitors with specialist knowledge andexperience, such as juvenile work.

We suggest that the following criteriashould be satisfied.(a) Designation should be granted to anindividual and not to a firm. The solicitorconcerned should have held a full practisingcertificate for at least five years immediatelypreceding his application.(b) The solicitor should have devoted atleast one-quarter of his time to the subjectin question during each of the last five years.(c) No solicitor should be designated as aspecialist in more than two subjects at anyone time.(d) The claim to be designated as aspecialist should be by written application tothe Law Society which should satisfy itselfthat the work carried out by the applicanthas been such as to justify the designationof specialist. The names of referees shouldbe provided if requested by the Law Society.(e) The applicant should be interviewedby a panel of three experienced practitionerswho should investigate in confidence theprofessional record and work of the applicantin order to determine whether the designationof specialist would be justified.

Applicants satisfying these criteria wouldbe entitled to describe themselves as

409

specialists in the appropriate category ofwork on their firm's writing paper, in theSolicitors' Directory, in the legal aidsolicitors' lists and other referral lists and inadvertisements. A solicitor who has beenrecognised as a specialist should certify onevery successive application for an annualpractising certificate that he has devoted atleast one-quarter of his normal working timeto his specialism. A solicitor who ceases tomeet this requirement should not longer beentitled to claim to specialise in it. In theevent of a complaint being upheld against asolicitor's conduct or competence in hisspecialism, his designation as a specialistshould be reviewed.'

. In a country where public awareness of legalnghts and resources are lacking, it can bepresumed that there is also lacking an awarenessof the availability and location of legally qualifiedpersonnel and of the nature of work in which theyspecialise.

In England, this problem was recognised by theRoyal Commission on legal services who reportedthat:

'Among the causes of unmet needs are lackof knowledge that particular problemsrequired legal advice and lack of knowledgeabout the availability and location ofsolicitors and about the type of work theyare willing to undertake.'

In countries like Malaysia where the literacyrate is even lower than in England, it can beassumed that a similar problem exists, perhaps ina more acute form.

One manner in which public awareness of theavailability and range of legal services may beenhanced is through the means of advertising.There is little doubt that an increase in the aware-ness of the availability of legal services is desirableas it would enable the public to select an advocateand solicitor who would be able to serve theirneeds in the best possible manner.

Another possible advantage of advertising isthat it may encourage the public to seek legaladvice on their problems. This would help themto identify their legal problems and to take thenecessary steps to obtain legal redress if they sodesire.

Closely related to advertising would be thequestion of specialisation. With the increasingabundance and complexity of legislation, it isdesirable that advocates and solicitors are giventhe opportunity to specialise as this would enhance

410

the quality of legal services which they are capableof providing. By permitting practitioners toadvertise, they would be given greater opportuni-ties to specialise as it would enable them tobe more selective of the type of work which theyare willing to undertake.

Undoubtedly, the public would also benefitfrom specialisation by advocates and solicitors.As it stands at the present moment, the publicare generally indiscreet in their choice of legalrepresentatives. More often than not, such.services are procured through the recommenda-tions of friends who may not even be aware thatthe practitioner whom they recommended maynot even be familiar with the particular area oflaw for which legal services is required. Anotherpopular manner in which legal services are pro-cured is through recalling the name of an advocateand solicitor whose name may have appearedoften in the newspapers in conjunction with hisinvolvement in legal matters or in relation to hispolitical exploits. These common methods ofselecting a lawyer may well be deficient as thepractitioner so retained may be unsuitable tohandle the particular problem.

The arguments for the adoption of a systemof recognition of specialist status may be SUlR-

marised as follows. If a practitioner is to pursuestudies and practical training in a speciality heshould be recognised as a specialist and permitted

to hold himself out as such. This will be in hisinterest and in the interest of the public. Asystem of recognition of specialist status willencourage specialised study and training and thushelp to improve the effeciency of the professionand assist in the development of the law. Re-cognition of specialist status will lead to quicker.more efficient and cheaper work in the specialistfield. It will assist the legal profession in resistingincursion by others into the traditional fields ofpractice of the profession and may open up newareas.

Recognition of specialist status is necessary tocope with the ever growing complexity of the lawand will lead to greater work satisfaction. Agreater volume of work in a field would enablea practitioner to organize himself better to dobetter work. The recognition of specialist statuswill encourage the setting up of a better systemof specialist training in place of the present systemof experience and random private study. 'I.

The danger of specialization is that there willbe concentration on specialities at the expenseof general practice. There is a danger too thatin the pursuit of specialization the purpo-se of lawto serve the need of society including the poor andthe needy might be forgotten or ignored. Lawwill became a speciality and lose its place as aninstrument for achieving social harmony andpublic welfare.

APPENDIX

411

Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules, 1978, Malaysia

37. Advocate and solicitor writing for pressnot to describe himself as advocate and solicitor.Subject to rule 38, an advocate and solicitorwriting for the press or for publication except inhis professional capacity shall take reasonablesteps to secure that no description of him as anadvocate and solicitor or of his legal work ap-pears in connection with his article.

38. Exceptions. Rule 37 does not apply tothe following:

(a) Where an advocate and solicitorpublishes a legal text-book (whether or notjointly with a person who is not an advocateand solicitor) upon the cover or title pagethereof his name, qualification and referencesto other text-books he may have written mayappear therein or in advertisements about it;(b) An advocate and solicitor who hasretired from practice may write the memoirsof his experiences at the Bar, but he shallnot betray the confidence which his clientshave reposed in him;(c) Where an advocate and solicitor writesan article for a legal journal.

39. Advocate and solicitor not to describehimself as advocate and solicitor without consentof Bar Council. An advocate and solicitorundertaking to give a lecture or a broadcast ona legal or quasi-legal subject may not without theconsent of the Bar Council permit himself to bedescribed by name as a member of the Bar.

40. Advocate and solicitor not to standsurety. An advocate and solicitor shall notstand as a surety or bailor for his client requiredfor the purpose of any legal proceedings.

41. Advocate and solicitor who has advisedArbitrator cannot appear in arbitration proceed-ings. An advocate and solicitor who has in anarbitration acted for the Arbitrator in advisinghim on points of law shall not advise or appearfor one of the parties in any proceedings relatingto the arbitration or award.

42. Advocate and solicitor not to com-

municate with a person represented by anotheradvocate and solicitor. An advocate and solici-tor shall not communicate with a person upon anymatter in respect of which to his knowledge thatperson is represented by another advocate andsolicitor except with the other's express consent.

~3. Ad~~cat~ and solicitor not to stir upstnfe and litigation. No advocate and solicitorshall volunteer advice to bring an action or tostir up strife and litigation.

44. Advocate and solicitor not to activelycarryon any trade. (a) An advocate andsolicitor shall not actively carryon any tradewhich is declared by the Bar Council from timeto time as unsuitable for an advocate and solicitorto engage in or be an active partner or a salariedofficer in connection therewith.

(b) An advocate and solicitor shall not bea full-time salaried employee of any person, firm(other than advocate and solicitor or firm ofadvocates and solicitors) or corporation so longas he continues to practise and shall on taking upany such employment, intimate the fact to theBar Council and take steps to cease to practise asan advocate and solicitor so long as he continuesin such employment.

45. Advocate and solicitor not to advertise.(a) An advocate and solicitor shall not solicitwork or advertise either directly or indirectly,whether by circular, advertisements, touts, per-sonal communications, interviews not warrantedby personal relations, furnishing or inspiringnewspaper comments or procuring his photo-graphs to be published in connection with casesin which he has been engaged or concerned.

(b) No advocate and solicitor shall displayoutside his office facing a public road or publicthoroughfare, a nameplate larger than in size2112 feet by 2 feet.

(c) No advocate and solicitor shall indicatein his signboard, nameplate or stationery that heis or has been a member of the Bar Councilorof any association or that he has been associated

412

with any person or organisation or with anyparticular cause or matter or that he specialisesin any particular type of work.

46. No personal advertisement. An advocateand solicitor shall not do or cause or allow to bedone anything with the primary motive of per-sonal advertisement, or anything calculated tosuggest that it is so motivated.

47. Advocate and solicitor not to give inter-view. An advocate and solicitor shall not givean interview or supply information to the pressconcerning his life, practice or earnings at theBar.

48. Advocate and solicitor not to publishphotograph. An advocate and solicitor shall nottake steps to procure the publication of his photo-graph as a member of the Bar in the press or anyperiodical.

49. Advocate and solicitor not to solicit re-porting. It is contrary to etiquette for anadvocate and solicitor to solicit the reporting ofany matter in which he has been professionallyengaged, but he may consider and revise reportsof cases in which he has been professionallyengaged so as to ensure the correctness of theReport.

50. Advocate and solicitor not to advertiseaddress. It is ntrary to etiquette for anadvocate and solicitor-

(a) to advertise his address or the address

of his fum in any book, pamphlet, news-paper, periodical or other publication, or(b) to sanction the publication either in thepress or elsewhere of notices or articlesreferring to his professional qualifications ormerits.

Provided that this rule shall not apply to theprinting of the name and address of any advocateand solicitor of any firm of advocates andsolicitors in the Law List, Law Directories,legal Diaries and such other Directory as the BarCouncil may from time to time sanction, or inany telephone directory in Malaysia, includingthat part reserved for advertisements and cur-rently known as the "yellow pages" or in ordinarylegal notices published in the press or elsewhere.In so printing his or their name and address anadvocate and solicitor or firm of advocates andsolicitors shall give no undue prominence theretoeither by the use of large print or enlargedspace and in every case the publication shallcomply with any restrictions, guidelines or ruleslaid down from time to time or at any time bythe Bar Council in respect of the publication inissue.

51. Advocate and solicitor not to do or causetouting. An advocate and solicitor shall not door cause or allow to be done, anything for thepurpose of touting directly or indirectly, or whichis calculated to suggest that it is done for thatpurpose.