Lawyer vs. Jurist in the DAFT Services Market

This is an industry-style report examining how English-language DAFT assistance providers may use attorney-coded terms (e.g., “lawyer,” “attorney,” “law firm”) in ways that can plausibly shape consumer interpretation and price expectations. The in-text findings describe (i) a structured scan of DAFT-related provider pages, (ii) disclosure patterns around advocaten (Bar-admitted attorneys) vs. juristen/consultants, and (iii) price-posting and bundling/upsell signals. The report itself frames these as patterns and does not assert that all attorney-coded marketing is unlawful; it emphasizes verifiable signals and consumer protection steps.What’s includedReport PDF (this record)Separate Figshare Dataset record (see “Related Materials”) containing the evidence pack (coded dataset, screening log, survey instrument template + summary, redacted exhibits, and integrity files). The report describes the evidence pack contents and reproducibility intent.