« 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

Comments

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.