Changes

In '''''Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar''''', the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ended the exemption for learned professionals like lawyers from application of the antitrust laws.  421 U.S. 773 (1975).  But the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] did allow for the application of less stringent rules to learned professions.

In '''''Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar''''', the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ended the exemption for learned professionals like lawyers from application of the antitrust laws.  421 U.S. 773 (1975).  But the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] did allow for the application of less stringent rules to learned professions.

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 [[Court rule|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]]