Difference between revisions of "Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (oops) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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 rules|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 rules|rules]] of its Supreme Court mandated minimum fees. | ||
[[Category:United States Law]] | [[Category:United States Law]] | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] |
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Antitrust]] |
Latest revision as of 13:32, July 13, 2016
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.