Difference between revisions of "Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) m |
m (link to de-orphan) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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]] | ||
Revision as of 18:14, February 14, 2009
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.