Legal Objection:

While Directive 98/5/EC was adopted to promote the free movement of lawyers across the European Union, its Finnish implementation has been limited to attorneys, resulting in a narrower scope than the Directive's objective would suggest.

1. Suspected Violation of the Finnish Constitution – Right to Work and Commercial Freedom

The Finnish implementation of Directive 98/5/EC appears to infringe Section 18 of the Finnish Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to work and freedom to engage in commercial activity. By granting certain legal professions exclusively to attorneys (asianajajat), the system prevents the majority of lawyers (juristit) from pursuing their profession and earning a living. This restriction is a direct violation of constitutional rights, limiting access to employment and professional freedom.

2. Suspected Conflict with the Directive’s Purpose – Free Market for Legal Services

Directive 98/5/EC was intended to promote a free and
competitive market for legal services across the EU/EEA, allowing lawyers to practice in other member states under their home-country qualifications. Finland’s approach, by granting exclusive rights to attorneys, appears to contradict the Directive’s purpose, restricting cross-border professional mobility and reducing competition in the legal services market.

3. Suspected Discrimination and Elitism

The current system is allegedly highly elitist and discriminatory: it
excludes approximately 90% of lawyers from opportunities available to attorneys. With only 2,000 attorneys versus roughly 20,000 lawyers, the concentration of privileges allows attorneys to maintain disproportionately high fees while marginalizing the majority of legal professionals. This systemic discrimination undermines equality principles and prevents fair
participation in the legal market.

4. Suspected Procedural Discrimination and Power Imbalance

For example, as my former client refused to pay my invoice and referred the matter to a public legal aid officer, an attorney-at-law, who holds a significant procedural advantage if the dispute
proceeds to court. This attorney informed me that the client would only pay 8% of my billed amount. This creates the appearance of procedural abuse and or fraud, potentially assisted by a governmental officer.

As a regular lawyer, I have faced ridicule, marginalization,
and discriminatory treatment, which reflects elitism aimed at preserving the legal market exclusively for attorneys. The attorney involved attempted to apply internal rules to a non-member, overstepping professional boundaries, while invoking principles that disproportionately limit my ability to claim fair payment. These actions illustrate how the Finnish Bar Association
(Asianajajaliitto) allegedly prioritizes the interests of their attorneys and appears to operate above accountability, further restricting the professional freedom of non-attorneys.

5. Suspected Potential Abuse of Market Position – Section 7 of the
Finnish Competition Act

The exclusive privileges granted to attorneys may also
constitute an abuse of a dominant market position under Section 7 of the Finnish Competition Act (948/2011). By restricting opportunities for lawyers, these practices limit competition, artificially constrain the market, and prevent lawyers from freely engaging in their occupation - violating both competition law and constitutional rights.

Conclusion

The Finnish implementation of Directive 98/5/EC and related
professional practices are suspected to:

  • Violate Section 18 of the Finnish Constitution by restricting citizens’ freedom to work and earn a living.
  • Contradict the Directive’s objective of creating a free and competitive EU/EEA market for legal services.
  • Create an elitist and discriminatory system favoring attorneys while marginalizing the majority of lawyers.
  • Demonstrate a potential abuse of market position under Section 7 of the Finnish Competition Act, limiting fair competition.
  • Raises procedural fairness and accountability concerns due to the exclusion of lawyers from implementation processes and the overreach of internal professional rules.

Taken together, these points appear to establish that the current
system is unlawful, unconstitutional, anti-competitive, and procedurally unfair, and warrants immediate review and correction to ensure compliance with both Finnish constitutional law and EU legal obligations.