Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar

19 Citing briefs

  1. Kamakahi v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine et al

    Memorandum in Opposition re Motion to Dismiss

    Filed August 15, 2011

    But the Supreme Court has explicitly noted that "the classic 5 basis traditionally advanced to distinguish professions from trades, businesses and other occupations ... 6 loses some of its force when used to support ... fee control activities." Goldfarb, 421 U.S. at 786-87. 7 This is why the Court has consistently applied the per se rule to price fixing rules promulgated by 8 professional organizations, even as it applied different standards of review to other potentially 9 anti competitive restraints.

  2. Manwin Licensing International S a r l et al v. ICM Registry LLC et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case 30

    Filed June 8, 2012

    The Sherman Act “[o]n its face… shows a carefully studied attempt to bring within the Act every person engaged in business whose activities might restrain or monopolize commercial intercourse among the states.” 421 U.S. at 787-88 (citations omitted). The Court then concluded that the Bar Association defendant was not exempt because “the activities of lawyers play an important part in commercial intercourse, and [] anticompetitive activities by lawyers may exert a restraint on commerce.”

  3. Meyer v. Kalanick

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 27 MOTION to Dismiss The First Amended Complaint. . Document

    Filed February 18, 2016

    10 Defendant is liable for this price-fixing, regardless of how many driver-partners negotiated with him, because all drivers “adhere[d] to the fee schedules.” Goldfarb, 421 U.S. at 778 n.6. Case 1:15-cv-09796-JSR Document 33 Filed 02/18/16 Page 22 of 32   16  technology company that provides “lead generation” and “payment processing services.” Def.

  4. Teladoc, Inc. et al v. Texas Medical Board, et al

    Response in Opposition to Motion

    Filed May 15, 2015

    N. C. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, 717 F.3d at 375 (quoting Goldfarb, 421 U.S. at 788 n. 17) (brackets, ellipse, and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, restrictions on “certain practices by members of a learned profession might survive scrutiny even though they would be viewed as a violation of the Sherman Act in another context.”

  5. GARCIA (SERGIO C.) ON ADMISSION

    Amicus Curiae Brief of California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris

    Filed July 18, 2012

    In fact, in a case on which the FTC relies heavily for the proposition that Congress can regulate the conduct of attorneys, the Supreme Court commented that the scope of the federal statute before it, the Sherman Antitrust Act, is so broadthat “language more comprehensiveis difficult to conceive.” Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 787, 95 S.Ct. 2004, 44 L.Ed.2d 572 (1975) (quoting United States v. S-E Underwriters Ass’n, 322 U.S. 533, 553, 64 S.Ct. 1162, 88 L.Ed. 1440 (1944)) (noting that “Congress intendedto strike as broadly as it could in § 1 of the Sherman Act’). The GLBA,on the other hand, is limited in its scope to “financial institutions.”

  6. HASSELL v. BIRD

    Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice

    Filed July 19, 2017

    This Court has recognized that there is an “extremely important” public interest concern- ing the conduct of lawyers. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 434 (1982); see also Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 US. 773, 793 (1975) (citation omitted) (“lawyers are essential to the primary governmental function of administering justice, and have historically been ‘officers of the courts,’”) Those who have been involved in the legal system must be encouraged to speak to inform the press and the public of their experiences, including how they were treated by lawyers and judges. This Court has recognized that “[tJhe sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendmentis bound to produce speech thatis critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are ‘intimately involved in the resolution of important public questionsor, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.’

  7. Northwest Immigrant Rights Project et al v. Sessions, III et al

    MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order

    Filed May 8, 2017

    “The interest of the States in regulating lawyers is especially great since lawyers are essential to the primary governmental function of administering justice, and have historically been ‘officers of the courts.’” Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 460 (1978) (quoting Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 792 (1975)). To that end, the “States prescribe the qualifications for admission to practice and the standards of professional conduct.

  8. In the Matter of Donald William Leo, a Disbarred Attorney, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed October 18, 2016

    It was no longer regarded as a special calling distinct from and above the rough and tumble world of tradesmen and merchants. Bates v. State Bar, 433 US 350, 97 SCt 2691, 53 Led2d 810 (1977) – lawyer advertising; Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 US 773, 95 SCt 2004, 44 LEd2d 572 (1975) – fee schedule. Law was democratized became becoming more diverse and multicultural open to women, foreigners and minorities.

  9. In the Matter of Joel R. Brandes, a disbarred attorney, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed September 8, 2016

    “The interest of the States in regulating lawyers is especially great since lawyers are essential to the primary governmental function of administering justice, and have historically been ‘officers of the courts.’ ” (Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 US 773, 792 [1975]). This Court is in accord with this overarching principle: “It is undisputed that New York has a constitutionally permissible interest to assure that those admitted to the Bar possess knowledge of the law as well as character and fitness requisite for an attorney.”

  10. Llacua et al v. Western Range Association et al

    RESPONSE to 88 MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, 89 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, 86 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, 83 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, 91 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint - Re-

    Filed January 29, 2016

    i. Association Defendants’ Concerted Conduct In this case, the WRA and MPAS violate the antitrust laws if—by policy or practice—they uniformly set wages offered to shepherds. See, e.g., Nat'l Soc'y of Prof'l Eng'rs, 435 U.S. 679 (1978) (upholding antitrust action against association that imposed ethical rule prohibiting competitive bidding by members); Goldfarb, 421 U.S. 773, 781 (1975) (concluding that bar associations violated antitrust laws by setting fee schedules for their members); Osborn v. Visa Inc., 797 F.3d 1057, 1066-67 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“The allegations here—that a group of retail banks fixed an element of access fee pricing through [Visa and MasterCard] rules—describe the sort of concerted action necessary to make out a Section 1 claim [against Visa and MasterCard].”). As the Tenth Circuit has explained, a rule permitting trade associations to fix wages or prices for their members would “eviscerate the protections of the Sherman Act because it would permit, for example, horizontal competitors to form associations in which all competitors agree Case 1:15-cv-01889-REB-CBS Document 96 Filed 01/29/16 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 56 10 to sell their product at the same supracompetitive price.