According to the author’s criticism in P3, the plans “function largely as marketing devices” for unestablished lawyers. He points to this as a negative consequence of the plans, since he believes that inexperienced lawyers will bring lower quality services and less client satisfaction.

P3 describes the author’s criticism of prepaid legal plans, not the plan administrators’ opinion. We have no idea what administrators think of the plans being “marketing devices” for unestablished lawyers, since administrators aren’t mentioned in P3. We just know that the author thinks that unestablished lawyers will bring lower quality services and less client satisfaction.

The author thinks that the plans functioning as “marketing devices” for unestablished lawyers is a cost, not a benefit. He believes that unestablished lawyers will bring lower quality services and less client satisfaction.

The claim that the plans function as marketing devices for unestablished lawyers is part of the author’s own argument against the plans; he doesn’t attribute this argument to lawyers. Also, he says that established lawyers won’t participate in the plan because they won’t benefit from it, not because it functions as a marketing device for unestablished lawyers.

We don’t anything about the burdens of unestablished lawyers or whether unestablished lawyers advocate for legal plans at all. Instead of (E), the author uses the referenced text to argue that the plans will bring lower quality legal services and less client satisfaction, since established lawyers probably won’t participate.