Report comment

Why is this ban controversial? A welcome gift of an iPad is either 1.) an advance on damages which will be deducted at some point from the claimant's settlement, or 2.) part of the costs of legal services which will eventually be paid for by the defendant of the claim. Both of these definitions are unwelcome and the practices should be stopped.
But what is the difference between 'general' marketing expenses, such as the costs of fancy business cards, adverts, etc which are considered an acceptable part of a firm's costs, and 'personal' marketing costs, such as iPads or advances on damages payments, which the government considers unacceptable?
I would say the big difference is that the personal marketing influences the decision claimants make about whether to make a claim or not, whilst general marketing is more likely to just includence the decision of which firm to use if a claimant is going to make a claim. Obviously there is some overlap between the two categories, but the distinction is still relevant.
The government's policy is designed to stop encouraging people who are in two minds about whether to make a claim at all from making one.
And there is some merit to this policy, looking at society as a whole. When a person makes a claim, their losses may be taken over by an insurer better able to deal with loss, but the size of the losses themselves are magnified by the addition of legal fees, medical assessment costs, court fees, etc.
A good accessible legal system is similar to insurance- it can shift losses from those less able to deal with them (individuals) to those able to deal with them better (insurers). But like all insurance policies, there is a choice to be made about the size of the deductible payment. With a large deductible, small losses will not lead to a claim, with the individual bearing the loss, but the cost of the overal policy will be much lower. A low deductible leads to more claims for small losses, and a consequently higher policy price.
Think of the these government changes as aiming to stop the legal system being like a "low deductible" or "no deductible" insurance policy, and they make a lot more sense.
Whether lawyers like to admit it or not, their marketing incentives change behaviour (otherwise why would you spend money on them?)The government believes, rightly or wrongly, that the current level of claims for non-catastophic injuries is too high as a result of too many incentives to make a claim, and not enough disincentives not to.