European Commission to crack down on anti-competitive professional rules

COMPETITION: EU commissioner to identify 'disproportionate and not justifiable' rules

The European Commission last week announced plans to crack down on any professional rules - including those of lawyers - that are anti-competitive and cannot be justified.

In a speech to German lawyers, competition commissioner Mario Monti said the commission would consult on the degree of regulation required for the professions, which he described as a 'stock-taking exercise'.

He said: 'I hope that by the end of the year we will be in a position to identify the rules and regulations, if any, that could be seen as disproportionate and not objectively justified.'

Last year, in the Wouters case relating to multi-disciplinary partnerships in the Netherlands, the European Court of Justice established that competition law did apply to the professions, but said anti-competitive measures necessary for the proper practice of - in this case - the legal profession are justified.

Mr Monti said decisions on which rules were covered by this exception would have to be made 'rule by rule, profession by profession'.

Research carried out for the commission by the Institute of Advanced Studies in Vienna found that the extent of regulation of all the professions varies greatly across the European Union.

Greece was found to have, by some distance, the most highly regulated legal profession and Finland the least, with the UK towards the liberal end of regulation.

There are no reserved activities in Finland.

Mr Monti said the research found that 'in countries with low degrees of regulation, there are relatively lower revenues per professional, but a proportionally higher number of practising professionals generating a relatively higher overall turnover.

This would suggest that low regulation is not a hindrance but rather a spur to overall wealth creation.'

Jonathan Goldsmith, the solicitor secretary-general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, said: 'What concerns us about the study, and the conclusions drawn, is that there has been no research undertaken into the reasons for regulation.

Similar core values of the legal profession are protected in every member state, but in a different way.

Without considering the fundamental reasons for regulation of lawyers, any economic conclusions drawn from the study seem to us questionable.'

Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva said: 'It is important that rules improve access to legal services and choice for consumers, and only exist to protect the public.

We look forward to participating in this review.'

Neil Rose