Bans on "no win no fee" advertising are spreading. The constitutional challenge to the NSW ban produced some very disappointing judgments from the High Court.
There is a strong argument that, if professions are concerned with providing disinterested skilled services, advertising is inappropriate and should not be permitted (or that professionals should exercise self-restraint and not advertise.) The reality is that professions are now businesses first and providing disinterested skilled services runs a distant second. Businesses advertise, and it follows that lawyers, medical practitioners and other professions now advertise.
Personal injury advertising (which should be distinguished from accident chasing/ claims harvesters) should either be subject to restrictions applying to advertisments generally or not be permitted at all. The second solution might get professionals thinking about their service obligations to the community and that they are not merely a business. People who are in need of quality legal services after an accident may not be well served by some "service providers", but they should be entitled to as much information about legal services as people in need of other less critical legal services are able to obtain. The future of a personal injury client is more at stake in engaging a lawyer than virtually all other clients, but less able to obtain information about relevant legal services. But the distinctive mission of the professions should not be lost.

Surely the underlying issue is whether no-win, no-fee engagements are in any way ethical. To single out one form of litigation simply because insurance companies are involved (and are usually keen to settle on the basis that it costs them, and their shareholders, less than determining who is "right") seems to me to be a cop-out.

Why don't we simply ban all forms of no-win, no-fee engagement.

Alternatively, if we want to reduce the cost of litigation to the general public across the board, insist that all forms of litigation are conducted in this fashion. That would improve the process from top to bottom.

Another way to inform plaintiffs without opening the floodgates to unscrupulous advertisers would be to provide a single government run information service which summarised all offerings in a common format - much as is done with 3rd party "green slip" insurers in NSW. The information could be provided in a truely disinterested and consistent way which would also weed out lawyers who apply hidden fees.

I think the core of the problem is that most injury compensation lawyers are in effect public servants with no public responsibilities; they provide an important public service which is mostly funded by our taxes. The entire legal system (ie the courts, judges, administration, and the laws themselves) is funded by taxpayers, and most injury lawyers are paid thanks to compulsory insurance policies ( such as workcover and motor vehicle injury insurance) which are in effect a form of selective taxation. The problem is these public servants are not regulated or controlled in the way regular public servants are - hence they set their own fees, self-regulate their own industry, determine the level of public service which they wish to provide, and are ultimatly not answerable to the taxpayers who foot most of the bills.

The legal profession is a disgrace. It is almost impossible for the average person to receive justice in this country if they don't have deep pockets. Solicitors who do the wrong thing by their clients will get away scot free of any penalty apart from a mild admonition from the Law Council. The customer will still pay through the nose however. There needs to be very strict laws that define what is right and wrong to prevent frivilous civil cases going to court that cost a person a fortune when they may loose. In what other area of life is this gamble allowed to happen ?. The fact that barristers can offer advice, conduct a case in court and lose and never be held to account for bad advice yet hit a customer for thousands of dollars a day should be a crime in itself. The courts who made this judgement demonstrated their beliefs of the law for the average man. If you want to win, be very rich or else stay in your place. Every aspect of the law should be redifined to prevent police "overcharging" in criminal matters and parliament presenting hysterical laws that flatten Cronulla rioters and refuse them bail, odius that they may be.

The major problem is that the general public have become too dishonest.The current situation in NSW is that the employer pays the premium[in my industry is 10% of wages]and when a claim is made premiums go up to cover the full amount of the payout.How do you disprove a bad back or someone who feels stressed?Workers comp is under written by the NSW Govt and it is $3 billion in the red primarily because Public servants use it as paid leave.The public sevice has 3 times the the rate of claims as private enterprise.Last year Public service claims we $672 million.

Because of all this nonsense OH&S home warranty etc I will stop making things here and go to China which is far cheaper anyway.Eventually nothing will be made here and the workers comp debacle will only hurry the process.

The lawyers protest too much since the present mess is due mostly to their own greed.The dishonest rorting of the system will only result in lessening employment.The whole system needs a complete overhaul.

Why not pay money to the employee so they can secure their own work insurance?Let's change the name.Have no claim bonuses and lower premiums for honest people.You have to have compulsory 3rd party insurance for you car why not personal injury for work.Exclude the lawyers and everyone else will be better off and have real penalities for the rorters.

Price justification is a related issue, methinks. Herein, physicians will charge a thirty dollar administration fee for billing clients, i.e., that is minute of clerical time. So, perhaps one could look at the Professions more broadly. It appears too many people are laws unto themsleves.

As for the general notion of The Professions advertising, I have no problem with that.