UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Online legal matching services are a valuable option for [the public]: they are likely to reduce consumers' costs for finding legal representation and have the potential to increase competition among attorneys. Further, we see no likely prospect of consumer harm that would justify the prohibition of online legal matching services...

The Federal Trade Commission has been entrusted by Congress with enforcing the federal antitrust laws. Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the FTC encourages competition in the licensed professions, including the legal profession, both through enforcement of the antitrust laws and through competition...

[I]t is important to recognize that competition benefits consumers of both the traditional manufacturing and the professional services industries. Based on our experience, it is our view that absent compelling evidence that consumers are likely to be harmed by online legal matching services, the Professional Ethics Committee should not issue an opinion that would have the effect of prohibiting consumers from accessing these services.

Indeed, a large amount of empirical research has found that restrictions on advertising in professions lead to higher prices and either a negative or no effect on quality. In the same way that advertising has been shown to benefit consumers of professional legal services, online legal matching services are likely to make it less expensive for consumers to evaluate providers of legal services. The information sent to inquiring clients is likely to allow consumers to compare the price and quality among several competing attorneys more cheaply than other methods of comparison. For example, a referral service that assigns the next attorney on a predetermined list to a client requires the client to meet the attorney and then seek a second referral simply to formulate a basis for comparison. Similarly, a directory such as the yellow pages is time-intensive because it requires the client to search for several attorneys and formulate his or her own method to evaluate lawyers. Indeed, these options may be more costly and yield far less relevant information than the lawyer matching services under review. By lowering consumers' costs of obtaining information about price and quality of legal services, online legal matching services are likely to allow consumers who use them to pay lower prices and/or obtain higher quality legal services than they would have had they used their next best alternative means for identifying a legal service provider.

We understand that online legal matching services have operated for several years. We are unaware, however, of any evidence that online legal services have caused any consumer harm.

Although we recognize that there may be legitimate concerns about allowing non-attorneys to refer potential clients to attorneys, such concerns do not appear to arise with respect to online legal matching services. These services do not advocate or recommend a particular attorney, but rather provide a conduit through which a consumer can invite attorneys to provide information about their ability to handle a consumer's particular legal issue. The information provided by attorneys who participate in these services, moreover, still is subject to existing prohibitions on misleading or deceptive advertising.

Online legal matching services have the potential to lower consumer costs of obtaining information about the price and quality of legal services, which is likely to lead to more intense competition among attorneys, ultimately benefiting consumers. At the same time, we see no indication that consumers are likely to suffer harm from online legal matching services that would justify banning them.