Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 2: Line 2:     
Specifically, the ''Goldfarb'' case involved a challenge to a minimum fee schedule established by a county bar association for practicing attorneys, and how attorneys could be disciplined by the state bar for violating those minimum rates.  The Court invalidated this fee schedule as "essentially a private anticompetitive activity."  The Court noted that neither [[Virginia]] law nor the rules of its Supreme Court mandated minimum fees.
 
Specifically, the ''Goldfarb'' case involved a challenge to a minimum fee schedule established by a county bar association for practicing attorneys, and how attorneys could be disciplined by the state bar for violating those minimum rates.  The Court invalidated this fee schedule as "essentially a private anticompetitive activity."  The Court noted that neither [[Virginia]] law nor the rules of its Supreme Court mandated minimum fees.
−
[[Category:United States law]]
+
[[Category:United States Law]]
 
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
 
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
 
[[category:antitrust]]
 
[[category:antitrust]]

Navigation menu