Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« NAACP Amicus Opposition to NYC Soft Drink Rules -- Bought and Paid-for? | Main | Bank agrees to stop making payday loans in North Carolina »

Thursday, January 24, 2013


Alvin P. Wallinford III

Two points.

First, you say that "bar rules that prohibit false and misleading content specifically are one thing," suggesting that bar rules that establish those prohibitions are okay. But why? Every state's law already prohibits false and misleading advertising, so there's no need for those bar rules.

Second, though I agree that bar advertising rules can harm consumers by keeping prices high, and otherwise keeping information out of consumers' hands, those rules have fairly small anti-competitive effects. The far bigger problem is the restrictions on practicing law (generally must be a bar member, must graduate from an accredited three-year law school, must pass a bar exam, etc.). Why not go after those far more significant barriers to competition?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

May 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31