1976, June, Pg. 801. From Our Readers.

5 Colo.Law. 801

Colorado Lawyer

1976.

1976, June, Pg. 801.

From Our Readers

801Vol. 5, No. 6, Pg. 801From Our ReadersEditor:The foundation of Mr. Kidneigh's argument (5 The Colorado Lawyer 617), suggesting that advertising is not all bad is, as he recognizes, the public's right to know. From this, he suggests that lawyers have a duty to tell the public whether the lawyer does the "kind of work" the consumer wants performed and how much the job will cost. It may be questioned whether the former question respecting the kind of work is properly phrased inasmuch as it contains an unarticulated but highly significant assumption.

Kidneigh derides the notion that the law is esoteric. Perhaps he is correct, at least as he uses the term; but he is not correct if he means to infer that laymen can, in large measure, judge the ability of lawyers and he is on even more shaky ground if he urges that an advertisement can somehow change that fact. He then points out that lawyers have enlightened themselves by agreeing among themselves "not to disclose any information about their abilities." In this quote is the major unarticulated assumption: Every lawyer is competent to handle any subject matter which he would choose to include in his advertisement.

I challenge that assumption. De facto specialization, to some extent, exists. De jure specialization is being tried in some states and our own association has drafted a plan, as well as implementing rules. These now await Supreme Court action. The Colorado plan, if adopted, would be an experimental one and would amply protect the economic interests of attorneys. It is asserted that there are far too many instances of lawyers accepting cases for which they are, at best, only marginally able to perform.

If the public has a right to know, then the profession has a correlative duty to inform. Without a clear measure of one's competency in a substantive area, there is no way that the profession can responsibly fulfill that obligation. Canons 6 and 1, to me, allow no less.

The problem now is that the public doesn't know who is competent. Allowing advertising will not, at present, tell the public who is competent, although it may tell the public who will try to do that kind of work. That seems to me to be little real change in terms of protecting the public's right to competent legal...