Ad description
Claims on a website for Stobart Barristers, www.stobartbarristers.co.uk:
a. A web page entitled "How it works" in the "Personal" section of the website included large text that stated "I thought I needed a solicitor?" and further text stated "This used to be true but new rules allow you to deal direct with barristers - the specialists who know particular areas of the law very well. Solicitors spend time and money meeting you and preparing your case before sending it to a barrister for an opinion. But going to a barrister yourself means you go direct to an expert. There's just one problem - not many people know which barrister would be right for their situation. This is where Stobart Barristers comes in. We have a national panel of barristers and QCs and we direct your case to the one who's best for you. You pay a fixed fee up front (which could be just a few hundred pounds) and receive a written, expert barrister's opinion on the merits of your case and how you should proceed within 7 days. (This could take months, the old way!) If you decide to carry on with your case, your barrister will continue to work with you direct, advising on procedures and paperwork and appearing for you in court, as usual. Again, the cost of this will be fixed before you start. While the case is continuing, Stobart Barristers' support services deal with court paperwork and correspondence for you and for your barrister. The whole process is faster and more efficient than using a solicitor. You'll be in direct contact with the person who knows most about your case and the law, and you'll be working on a fixed fee basis, so there will be no surprises".
b. A video on the home page of the website included the presenter stating, "As soon as you have any kind of legal problem … call Stobart Barristers. They'll connect you direct to an expert barrister or QC on their national panel, and charge you a fair, fixed, upfront fee for his or her advice and representation… and you will have saved time, worry and money compared with doing it the old way." Text underneath stated "Top people. Fixed cost".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether ads (a) and (b) were misleading, because they did not make clear that an additional fixed fee could be payable if a court hearing was adjourned.
Response
Stobart Barristers Ltd (Stobart Barristers) said that from the outset of a case with them, each client received a written contract. They said some clients elected for a fixed fee for the entire case and paid that one fee only. In that case the business carried the risk and cost of any adjournment and in that event there would be no extra fee for the client. Other clients chose to pay a fixed fee that covered advice and representation on a specific date only. In the event the case was adjourned and a barrister needed to be rebooked then there would be a separate contract and fee agreed. They said that following an adjournment a barrister booked for the case could not undertake other work and would have incurred expenses. Some cases could also be adjourned after several hours of waiting. They said most clients chose the second option because the cost was substantially less than paying a fee for anticipated hearings that may not be required. However, by choosing this option the client bore the risk that if the case was not resolved quickly they could incur additional expense. They said this was explained clearly in the written contracts. They provided three example contracts: one where a fixed fee was paid for all work; and two contracts from the same case where fees were paid for specific hearing dates only.
Assessment
Not upheld
Ads (a) and (b) both made a number of references to fixed fees and costs. Ad (a) gave information about the process and explained that an initial fixed fee would be agreed for a barrister's opinion and that a further fixed fee would then be agreed if representation was required. We considered that consumers would understand from the ads that Stobart Barristers worked on a fixed fee basis, as opposed to an hourly rate as often used by solicitors. We did not consider the ads implied that one fixed fee would cover all services or hearings required, or that only one fixed fee would be payable throughout the life of a case. Although we understood the complainant felt they had been misled when they were asked to pay a further fixed fee after a hearing was adjourned, we understood that the advertiser offered two fixed rate options to customers, one involving a fixed rate fee for the whole case and another 'pay as you go' fixed rate option. We therefore concluded the ads were not misleading.
We investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP Code (edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.9
3.9
Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification) but did not find them in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
