IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v2y2006i2p189-214..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition In Professional Services Markets: Are Latin Notaries Different?

Author

Listed:
  • Roger Van den Bergh
  • Yves Montangie

Abstract

Competition in markets for services offered by Latin notaries may not work properly because of information asymmetries and the need to guarantee an optimal supply of public goods. In Europe, there have been two test cases allowing for an assessment of the effects of liberalization: the abolishment of the solicitors’ monopoly for conveyancing services in England and Wales and the deregulation of the Dutch notary profession. Both cases show that deregulation does not guarantee lower prices. Moreover, the Dutch experience shows that there is a justified concern that competition may decrease quality and jeopardize the notary's integrity. For these reasons, regulation may be justified as long as effective instruments to control and monitor quality are not (yet) in place. Since legal certainty has characteristics of a public good, competition also tends to increase the number of disputes on the legal validity of documents certifying legal transactions. A comparison of the tasks of a Latin notary and those of an American notary public provides reasons to fear that, after deregulation, protection against legally invalid transactions may be available only at higher prices. Finally, the Dutch experience shows that fee regulations remain necessary to guarantee the accessibility of notarial services.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger Van den Bergh & Yves Montangie, 2006. "Competition In Professional Services Markets: Are Latin Notaries Different?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 189-214.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:2:y:2006:i:2:p:189-214.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhl008
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benito Arruñada, 2007. "Market and institutional determinants in the regulation of conveyancers," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 93-116, April.
    2. Niels J. Philipsen, 2013. "Competition advocacy and case law in Europe: the case of the liberal professions," Chapters, in: Michael Faure & Xinzhu Zhang (ed.), The Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law, chapter 12, pages 351-374, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Camille Chaserant & Sophie Harnay, 2010. "Déréglementer la profession d’avocat ? Les apories de l’analyse économique," Working Papers hal-04140922, HAL.
    4. Camille Chaserant & Sophie Harnay, 2013. "The regulation of quality in the market for legal services: Taking the heterogeneity of legal services seriously," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 10(2), pages 267-291, August.
    5. Luciano Lavecchia & Carlo Stagnaro, 2019. "There ain’t no such thing as a free deed: the case of Italian notaries," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 277-290, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:2:y:2006:i:2:p:189-214.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.