Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar

Last updated
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 25, 1975
Decided June 16, 1975
Full case nameGoldfarb et ux. v. Virginia State Bar et al
Citations421 U.S. 773 ( more )
95 S. Ct. 2004; 44 L. Ed. 2d 572; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 13
Case history
PriorState bar held exempt from antitrust action, 355 F. Supp. 491 (E.D. Va. 1973), judgment reversed on appeal, 497 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1974); cert. granted, 419 U.S. 963(1974).
Holding
The legal profession is subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act. A minimum-fee schedule for basic legal services is in restraint of trade and is illegal.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
Case opinion
MajorityBurger, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist
Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Section I of the Sherman Act

Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision. It stated that lawyers engage in "trade or commerce" and hence ended the legal profession's exemption from antitrust laws. [1]

Contents

Facts

In 1971, Ruth and Lewis Goldfarb decided to buy a house in Fairfax County, Virginia. To get a mortgage, they needed to perform a title search on the house, which can only be performed by a lawyer i.e. a member of the Virginia State Bar. Goldfarb contacted a lawyer, who quoted him a price suggested in a minimum-fee schedule published by the Fairfax County Bar Association, which was 1% of the property's value. Goldfarb attempted to find a cheaper quote. He sent 36 letters to other lawyers and received 19 responses, all declining to quote a fee lower than the minimum-fee schedule suggests. Some said that they did not know of any attorney who would do so. Unable to find a lower price, Goldfarb agreed to the 1% quote and subsequently sued both the State Bar and the County Bar alleging that the fee schedule amounted to price-fixing and a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, seeking both injunctive relief and damages. [2]

The minimum-fee schedule was a list of prices, suggested by the county bar for various basic legal services, such as wills, marriage contracts, and title searches. The enforcement power lay in the hands of the State Bar, which was the administrative agency used by the Supreme Court of Virginia to regulate the legal profession. Without a license from the State Bar, no one can practice law in Virginia. The State Bar did not compel adherence to this fee schedule, but it had published several reports condoning the practice and had opined that habitual violation of the minimum-fee schedule suggests misconduct on the part of the lawyer.

Petitioners' arguments

The plaintiffs argued that the minimum-fee schedule created an artificial price floor for title searches in Fairfax County and that, in the absence of this fee schedule, they would have been able to procure a quote lower than the one listed in the schedule. They pointed to the history of Section 1, Sherman Act enforcement. In Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States , [3] Judge Taft created the distinction between naked and ancillary restraints of trade, and the Virginia State Bar's restraints are naked. In United States v. Trenton Potteries , [4] the Supreme Court first established per se illegality of price-fixing because a reasonable price today may become unreasonable tomorrow and the courts cannot be expected to re-confirm every price. The reasonableness of the fees on the minimum-fee schedule is, then, immaterial. And finally, in United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co, Inc. , [5] the Court proclaimed, in a famous footnote, that price-fixing need be neither intentional or feasible to be found per se illegal. Hence, the fact that the State Bar's power of compulsion was not absolute does not mean the fee schedule is legal.

Respondents' arguments

The defendants posed four separate arguments.

  1. The minimum-fee schedule is purely advisory and is only intended to provide information to members. No attorney is compelled to follow it. Furthermore, while membership in the State Bar is a prerequisite to practice law in Virginia, membership in the County Bar is voluntary, and hence, any guidelines, such as the fee schedule, adopted by a local bar association, are also voluntary.
  2. This was to be a transaction between a resident of Virginia and a lawyer residing in Virginia, influenced by his County Bar and the Virginia State Bar. Since interstate commerce is not affected, federal law in general and the Sherman Act in particular do not apply.
  3. Law is a "learned profession." Lawyers do not engage in trade and commerce and hence any restrictions on the pricing schemes they use are not restraints of trade, prohibited under the Sherman Act.
  4. Because the Virginia State Bar is licensed by the Virginia Supreme Court to regulate the profession in the state, policies promulgated by it and its subsidiaries are "state action" and are thus subject to the Parker v. Brown [6] state action exemption from federal antitrust law.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that since prices were fixed, since price-fixing is per se illegal under the Sherman Act, and since no valid exemption from the Sherman Act could be shown, the minimum-fee schedule violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Circuit Court judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to District court to determine the proper remedy. The court rejected each defense attempted by the respondents as follows.

  1. It found the fee schedule to be effectively compulsory. The prospect of disciplinary action from the State Bar, regardless of whether the County Bar was a voluntary organization or had enforcement capabilities, was sufficient to dissuade all attorneys from quoting a price below the one listed on the schedule. The attorneys were furthermore assured that their competitors would not undercut them because they would face the same disciplinary action. This effectively created a price floor.
  2. The source of financing for the house, which was what originally required Goldfarb to seek a title search, would come from across state lines, making this a matter of interstate commerce.
  3. Lawyers provide services in exchange for money, and thus engage in commerce. There is nothing to suggest that the Sherman Act was meant to provide a sweeping exemption to an entire profession regardless of what other not-for-profit purposes the profession may have.
  4. While the operation of the Virginia State Bar was proscribed by state action i.e. authority granted by statute to the Virginia Supreme Court, the specific anticompetitive behavior in question—the minimum-fee schedule—was not directly authorized by the State acting as a sovereign. "It is not enough that, as the County Bar puts it, anticompetitive conduct is "prompted" by state action; rather, anticompetitive activities must be compelled by direction of the State acting as a sovereign." [7]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975).
  2. ↑ "The Virginia Couple That Gave Birth to the Billable Hour". 30 September 2015.
  3. ↑ Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States ,85F.271(6th Cir.1898).
  4. ↑ United States v. Trenton Potteries, 273 U.S. 392 (1927).
  5. ↑ United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co, Inc., 310 U.S. 150 (1940).
  6. ↑ Parker v. Brown , 317 U.S. 341 (1943).
  7. ↑ Breit, W; Elzinga, K. The Antitrust Casebook: Milestones in Antitrust Regulation, page 49. The Dryden Press, 1996.

Related Research Articles

Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 1890 U.S. anti-monopoly law

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce. It was passed by Congress and is named for Senator John Sherman, its principal author.

Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914

The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, is a part of United States antitrust law with the goal of adding further substance to the U.S. antitrust law regime; the Clayton Act seeks to prevent anticompetitive practices in their incipiency. That regime started with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the first Federal law outlawing practices that were harmful to consumers. The Clayton Act specified particular prohibited conduct, the three-level enforcement scheme, the exemptions, and the remedial measures.

United States antitrust law American legal system intended to promote competition among businesses

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of business corporations and are generally intended to promote competition and prevent monopolies. The main statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.

Price fixing Agreement over prices between participants on the same side in a market

Price fixing is an anticompetitive agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.

The rule of reason is a legal doctrine used to interpret the Sherman Antitrust Act, one of the cornerstones of United States antitrust law. While some actions like price-fixing are considered illegal per se, other actions, such as possession of a monopoly, must be analyzed under the rule of reason and are only considered illegal when their effect is to unreasonablyrestrain trade. William Howard Taft, then Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, first developed the doctrine in a ruling on Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, which was affirmed in 1899 by the Supreme Court. The doctrine also played a major role in the 1911 Supreme Court case Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States.

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Sherman Act applied to the railroad industry, even though the U.S. Congress had enacted a comprehensive regime of regulations for that industry.

Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey guilty of monopolizing the petroleum industry through a series of abusive and anticompetitive actions. The Court's remedy was to divide Standard Oil into several geographically separate and eventually competing firms.

Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211 (1899), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that for a restraint of trade to be lawful, it must be ancillary to the main purpose of a lawful contract. A naked restraint on trade is unlawful; it is not a defense that the restraint is reasonable.

The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution and that the federal antitrust laws applied to the insurance industry.

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the right of lawyers to advertise their services. In holding that lawyer advertising was commercial speech entitled to protection under the First Amendment, the Court upset the tradition against advertising by lawyers, rejecting it as an antiquated rule of etiquette.

Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908), also referred to as the Danbury Hatters' Case, is a United States Supreme Court case in United States labor law concerning the application of antitrust laws to labor unions. The Court's decision effectively outlawed the secondary boycott as a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, despite union arguments that their actions affected only intrastate commerce. It was also decided that individual unionists could be held personally liable for damages incurred by the activities of their union.

The Virginia State Bar (VSB) is the administrative agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia created to regulate, improve and advance the legal profession in Virginia. Membership in good standing in the VSB is mandatory for attorneys wishing to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The VSB is thus an integrated bar.

Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which reaffirmed the law that fixing a maximum price was illegal per se. This rule was reversed in 1997 by State Oil Co. v. Khan, which held that maximum price-setting was not inherently anti-competitive and not always a violation of antitrust law, and should therefore be evaluated for legality under the rule of reason rather than a per se rule.

The Parker immunity doctrine is an exemption from liability for engaging in antitrust violations. It applies to the state when it exercises legislative authority in creating a regulation with anticompetitive effects, and to private actors when they act at the direction of the state after it has done so. The doctrine is named for the Supreme Court of the United States case in which it was initially developed, Parker v. Brown.

In the United States, advertising of services by members of the profession of law is typically permitted but regulated by state court and bar association rules.

Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332 (1982), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving antitrust law. A society of doctors in Maricopa County, Arizona, established maximum fees that their members could claim for seeing patients who were covered by certain health insurance plans. Arizona charged them with violations of state antitrust law regarding price fixing. The society tried to rebut the state's charges by claiming that the maximum-fee arrangement was necessary to allow doctors to see these patients, and therefore generated economic benefits.

<i>Mitchel v Reynolds</i>

Mitchel v Reynolds (1711) 1 PWms 181 is decision in the history of the law of restraint of trade, handed down in 1711. It is generally cited for establishing the principle that reasonable restraints of trade, unlike unreasonable restraints of trade, are permissible and therefore enforceable and not a basis for civil or criminal liability. It is largely the basis in US antitrust law for the "rule of reason." William Howard Taft, then Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, later US President and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, quoted Mitchel extensively when he first developed the antitrust rule-of-reason doctrine in Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, which was affirmed in 1899 by the Supreme Court. The doctrine also played a major role in the 1911 Supreme Court case Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States 221 U.S. 1 (1911).

North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 574 U.S. 494 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case on the scope of immunity from US antitrust law. The Supreme Court held that a state occupational licensing board that was primarily composed of persons active in the market it regulates has immunity from antitrust law only when it is actively supervised by the state. The North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners had relied on the Parker immunity doctrine, established by the Supreme Court case Parker v. Brown, which held that actions by state governments acting in their sovereignty did not violate antitrust law.

United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc., 342 U.S. 371 (1952), is a 1952 Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that a claim of conspiracy to fix uniform minimum prices and to eliminate competition throughout substantially all of the wrinkle finish industry of the United States by means of patent license agreements was, if proved, a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. That one of the defendants, a patent-holding company, abstained from manufacturing activities, did not ship goods in commerce, and engaged solely in patent licensing did not insulate its activity from § 1. Making these license contracts for the purpose of regulating distribution and fixing prices of commodities in interstate commerce is subject to the Sherman Act, even though the isolated act of contracting for the licenses occurs within a single state. Patents give no protection from the prohibitions of the Sherman Act when the patent licensing agreements are used to restrain interstate commerce and fix prices of goods shipped in commerce.

United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of the 1926 Supreme Court decision in the General Electric case that had exempted patent licensing agreements from antitrust law's prohibition of price fixing. The Court did so by applying the doctrine of the Court's recent Interstate Circuit hub-and-spoke conspiracy decision.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.