"You could make the same arguments (regardless of its basis in fact) about, say, lenders targeting spendaholics, drinks companies targeting alcos, fast food companies targeting fatsos, leisure companies targeting layabouts, quack therapists and religions organizations targeting the gullible etc. Hard cases make bad law and, in my opinion, the majority who can make reasonably responsible decisions about consuming the various goods and services on offer should not be penalised by legislation framed to protect the minority who cannot from themselves and their poor decisions."
You could indeed make the same arguments. They are already made and enforced to some extent. That is why, for example, we have restrictions on both alcohol and tobacco advertising. Indeed, though I think myself that some of them go too far, we also have restrictions on advertising by lenders.
"Based on what analysis of hard data? Or is it just a hunch/prejudice of yours?"
Hunch. I don't think we have the technology available to measure aggregate gambling pleasure.
"So maybe the issue here is that solicitors' access to clients' funds should be more strictly regulated and circumscribed rather than targeting the availability of gambling services to the general public or any subset of same? "
This may well be the road we should go - though of course there are downsides. If, for example, client funds had to go into individual escrow accounts, and if joint authority of client and solicitor were then required to release funds, it would add quite a bit to transaction costs (for which the client would ultimately pay) but it would free me from the worry that I will have to put my hand in my pocket again to pay for the transgressions of another solicitor who did not understand the basic concepts of mine and thine.
However, in the meantime, I don't think it at all inappropriate that solicitors (and indeed stockbrokers, auctioneers and others who control large sums of other people's money) should be prohibited- at a minimum - from having a situation where an online gambling facility and client funds are or can be accessed from the same computer.
My own view - which is perhaps a little Spartan- is that people who handle client money should not gamble online, period.
You could indeed make the same arguments. They are already made and enforced to some extent. That is why, for example, we have restrictions on both alcohol and tobacco advertising. Indeed, though I think myself that some of them go too far, we also have restrictions on advertising by lenders.
"Based on what analysis of hard data? Or is it just a hunch/prejudice of yours?"
Hunch. I don't think we have the technology available to measure aggregate gambling pleasure.
"So maybe the issue here is that solicitors' access to clients' funds should be more strictly regulated and circumscribed rather than targeting the availability of gambling services to the general public or any subset of same? "
This may well be the road we should go - though of course there are downsides. If, for example, client funds had to go into individual escrow accounts, and if joint authority of client and solicitor were then required to release funds, it would add quite a bit to transaction costs (for which the client would ultimately pay) but it would free me from the worry that I will have to put my hand in my pocket again to pay for the transgressions of another solicitor who did not understand the basic concepts of mine and thine.
However, in the meantime, I don't think it at all inappropriate that solicitors (and indeed stockbrokers, auctioneers and others who control large sums of other people's money) should be prohibited- at a minimum - from having a situation where an online gambling facility and client funds are or can be accessed from the same computer.
My own view - which is perhaps a little Spartan- is that people who handle client money should not gamble online, period.