Feeds:
Posts
Comments
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Kennedy-bodyslams-Holly%2C-RLA-Melb-10.11.2007.jpg/399px-Kennedy-bodyslams-Holly%2C-RLA-Melb-10.11.2007.jpg

Photo by, John O’Neill, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

A scathing state auditor’s report released last month body slammed the State Bar of California for rushing disciplinary cases to shorten a longstanding and growing backlog; for settling cases with less severity; and for going $50 million over-budget for a building renovation. The report went on to say the Cal Bar “has not consistently protected the public through its attorney discipline process and lacks accountability.” See “Auditor blasts State Bar for inconsistent discipline of bad lawyers, shoddy finances.”

To the surprise of no one, the Cal Bar accepted the auditor’s findings and even unconvincingly claimed to have already been working on the problems — “before the audit began.” Right! And I was going on a diet when they caught me eating that pint of ice cream.

This is the same state bar Arizona Supreme Court’s on State Bar Mission and Governance inexplicably opted to consult about reforming its governance structure. Sure the California Bar was ordered by the state legislature in 2010 to create a Governance in the Public Interest Task Force. And sure that task force was charged with recommending ways to “improve the existing system so as to best advance the goals of ensuring public protection.” But why would anyone think the California Bar’s ‘reforms’ were an exemplar worth studying?

https://i2.wp.com/5.kicksonfire.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Seinfeld-Newman.gifWhen I heard about it, I thought it was risibly ridiculous that Arizona’s Task Force would look to the bar bureaucrats next door for insights on structural governance reform. Only an out-of-touch legal establishment with blinders on like Arizona’s would come up with that brainstorm. That’s like asking Kim Kardashian about modesty or Donald Trump about hairdos.

A dysfunctional mess.

Stressed businessman

“A consultant is a guy with gray hair so he can appear distinguished and hemorrhoids so he can look concerned.” – Malcolm Berko

For some 30 years — and longer, the California State Bar has been a dysfunctional and deservedly criticized bureaucratic mess. No matter that California Bar leaders have paid lip service to reform for years. The criticisms are legion. In 1997, then-California Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed a two-year fee authorization for the California State Bar because its actions had confirmed the charges of disgruntled members who characterized the bar as “bloated, arrogant, oblivious and unresponsive.”

An earlier audit in 2009 was critical of the Cal Bar over“negotiated salary increases over the past five years, an increase of $12 million in the operation of the discipline system — roughly 5 percent per year — while the number of inquiries declined.” And this was also the time period when unbelievably, a former Bar employee embezzled nearly $676,000 while no one was evidently minding the store. No wonder then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation that allowed the Bar to collect its annual dues.

So this latest critical audit report is no surprise to longtime Cal Bar watchers. One inveterate and knowledgeable critic, the legal ethicist and law professor, Richard Zitrin, even lauds the legislative oversight of the Bar — something some Arizona lawyers gag on as anathema. I’m personally glad that the legislature has a say-so over the bar. Many of the reforms to the legal system that benefit the public came from the legislature, while the bar has repeatedly protected itself rather than the public,” Zitrin commented at the Legal Ethics Forum Blog.

Office Stress 92As for Arizona Court’s Task Force, there’s more embarrassment. Just months after the Task Force consulted with the California Bar’s then-Executive Director Joseph Dunn and per the meeting minutes, not long after Dunn told Task Force members about the Cal Bar’s reforms and how the board was “less contentious” and now “unified” and how the organization was “more focused, professional, and collegial” — Dunn was fired. I guess he didn’t see that one coming.

But at least the Arizona Task Force gave Dunn a round of applause for his presentation. So much for Dunn’s happy Kumbaya talk about the “proactive” California Bar and how its reforms are “the best thing that’s ever happened to the bar.”

People 6043Indeed, according to a Los Angeles Times story, “Accusations fly as State Bar of California leader Joe Dunn fights ouster, the California Bar is “once again beset with conflict, riddled with accusations involving expense accounts and ethics.” Nothing new to longtime critics of the California Bar. One California law professor told the newspaper, “The bar is just further descending into a banana republic. It is totally dysfunctional and should be unraveled.”

And since Dunn, a former state senator and trial lawyer, is not a man to take termination lying down, he is fighting back in the court of public opinion and in county superior court. He filed suit on November 13, 2014 alleging wrongful termination and claimed whistleblower liability and retaliation for allegedly reporting illegal activities and ethical breaches by high-ranking Cal Bar officials. Also see “Five things to know about the State Bar dustup with former director.”

Busy Business Women 40Too bad the Arizona Task Force was so clueless about their next-door neighbors. Otherwise, it might have refrained from a Golden State consultation or ironically enough, according to its latest list of reform recommendations, from mirroring many of the same milquetoast ‘reforms’ adopted by the California Task Force. These underwhelmingly include maintaining compulsory membership; reducing the size of the governing board; changing the board’s name from “governors” to “trustees;” and adding new qualifications, term limits and related procedures.

Then again the legal elites around here don’t have to worry about independent state audits.

Zelda was kicking my butt. xD | by couragextoxlive

There was a story years ago about a Compton, CA man who took the California Bar Exam 47 times over 25 years before he finally passed on the 48th try. I once thought bar exam-takers who failed the exam multiple times but kept retaking it again and again deserved props for perseverance. But a part of me also thought they were like someone who hits himself repeatedly with a hammer because it feels so good when he stops. Finally passing the bar exam meant putting the hammer away.

I thought of such self-inflicted harm on discovering there was a new Guinness World Record for most kicks to your own head in one minute. The record of 134 self-inflicted head kicks was achieved by Puskar Nepal in Kathmandu, Nepal on December 19, 2014. The bar exam is one thing but who thinks of kicking themselves in the head?

Of course this is all just a lame prefatory pretext to allow my segue into a few additional complimentary online continuing legal education updates I missed last time.

As always, I disclaim any warranties about content, continued availability, and jurisdictional creditworthiness. You’re on your own. Most importantly, free CLE not only beats a kick to the head but repeated kicks to the keister, too.

FREE ONLINE WEBCASTS

LexisNexis

LexisNexis presents a complimentary CLE-eligible webinar: A Holistic Approach to Due Diligence and Third-Party Risk Management Corporate Counsel Emerging Issues

Thursday August 6, 2015
2:00 PM ET – 3:35PM ET
Duration: 95 minutes

LexisNexis presents a complimentary CLE-eligible Webinar: Lessons from the “Serial” Case: Ten Evidentiary Missteps to Avoid

The live Webinar is Tuesday, August 18, 2015, from 2:00 P.M. ET – 3:15 P.M. ET. Register now. 

______________________________________________________________________

 One LLP

Online MCLE Video Selection

The Limitations of Persuasion, Know Them and Use Them

One-hour on demand CLE

IP Overview for Non-IP Lawyers

One-hour on demand CLE

Winning on Appeal

One-hour on demand CLE

Persuasion II:  The Dangers of Over-Aggressive Advocacy

One-hour on demand CLE

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Someone Online Hates You: Ethical Responses to Negative Online Feedback

(1hr Ethics CLE in PA/CA/FL/IL/TX/WA)

September 10, 2015 at 10 am Pacific / 1 pm Eastern

Register now

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Legislative Intent Service

Grape eating contest | by denverkid

Proponents also speciously called the whole thing an “authorization” to increase dues and not a dues increase. And a “kick me” sign is not an inducement for a foot to the backside.

So citing oaths, obligations, and the special snowflake status of lawyers, the petitioners hoped to add Florida to the list of jurisdictions such as Minnesota and Wisconsin where as a condition to practice, state supreme courts tax lawyers to fund civil legal services. The other states that impose mandatory civil legal aid assessments are Indiana, Illinois, Texas, Missouri and Pennsylvania. And not to be outdone, at a $100 Florida’s tax would have been the highest.

"Peel Me a Grape" | by basykesIn December, the Florida Supreme Court heard arguments on the petition. Noteworthy was this scriptural riposte courtesy of Justice James Perry, “To much who is given, much is expected.”  Of course the easiest burdens to bear are somebody else’s.

‘Don’t worry about the mule going blind, keep loading the wagon.’

https://i0.wp.com/www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Earnings-of-solo-practitioners.png

Speaking, then, of the noble obligations of the so-called privileged, just last month I read about the falling average earnings of solo legal practitioners. Solos and small firms generally represent two-thirds of most U.S. lawyers.

In the last 25 years, average solo pay has fallen from $75,000 to $50,000 according to data compiled by University of Tennessee Law School Professor Benjamin Barton and cited in Professor Paul Campos’ post, The Collapsing Economics of Solo Legal Practice. Professor Barton’s new book, Glass Half Full: The Decline and Rebirth of the American Legal Profession was published last month.

And no matter that lawyer unemployment remains a problem in Florida or that 44% of all respondents to the Florida Bar’s last lawyer economics and law office management survey reported their business/profitability had decreased the past two years. In the same survey, almost 40% said they didn’t expect things to get better in the near future.

And then there’s this. According to Law School Transparency, nearly 85 percent of law graduates financed law school through student loans. The average debt incurred for 2010 law graduates was $77,364 at public law schools and $112,007 at private institutions. See “Burdened With Debt, Law School Graduates Struggle in Job Market.”

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m well aware that legal aid programs across the country are in continual budgetary crisis. And I’m not quibbling with the need, the rationale, or the petitioners’ parade of horribles. My objection is over the means. When did fixing a longstanding societal problem become the sole obligation of lawyers? By comparison, are physicians and dentists as a condition of practicing their professions likewise required to pony up for indigent healthcare services?

Fortunately for Florida lawyers — but not so much for legal aid advocates, petition opponents prevailed. Stating that the “issue requires further study and a more comprehensive approach,” the Florida Supremes declined to adopt the proposed amendment.”

Hat tip to The Legal Watchdog  for passing along the latest moves afoot in Florida.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: “grape eating contest,” by denverkid at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; “peel me a grape,” by Bev Sykes at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Burning_oil_lamp.jpg/800px-Burning_oil_lamp.jpgThis post may come too late for lawyers staying up late tonight trying to make their fiscal continuing legal education deadline. But on the plus side, it gives everyone else a head start on next year! Without further ado, the following are links to free online CLE and to one low-cost provider. I have no interest, involvement or connection to that provider other than having been a past purchaser of their programs.

The usual disclaimers concerning content, continued availability and jurisdictional approval apply.

National Consumer Law Center

Who Owns the Note?: A Securitization Primer

On-demand webinar, Held January 22, 2015

One hour

Webinar made possible by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office with funding from the National Mortgage Settlement.

Other Webinars available including, Webinars archive

_________________________________________________________________________

National Institute for Trial Advocacy

How I Learned To Love The Non-Responsive Witness, And You Can Too

July 21, 2015

11:00 AM Mountain Time

One hour self-study Credit

More than 20 other complimentary programs available at https://www.nita.org/index.php?option=com_dtregister&view=event&layout=list&controller=event&task=category&list1=9&tab=webcasts

___________________________________________________________________________

Attorney Protective

Why Lawyers Get Sued

One hour of Ethics CLE

Date: July 29, 2015
Time: 12:00 PM-1:05 Central Time, 1:00 PM-2:05 Eastern Time and 10:00AM Pacific Time

Reserve your Webinar seat now at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2609215124010571777

___________________________________________________________________

LexisNexis

Finding Out is Better: Effectively Using Technology for Factual Discovery (07/02/2015-07/02/2015)

One hour of general CLE credit

  • Date: 07/02/2015
  • Time: 12:00pm EST- 1:00pm EST
  • Class Type: Virtual Training
  • Registration End: 07/02/2015

Drinking from a Fire Hydrant: Basic Legal Research in the Age of Technology (07/06/2015-07/06/2015)

One hour of general CLE credit

  • Class Type: Virtual Training
  • Time: 3:00pm – 4:00pm EST
  • Dates: 07/06/2015

Following, Friending and Pinning: The Intersection of Social Media and Evidentiary Principles (07/07/2015-07/07/2015)

One hour of general CLE credit

  • Class Type: Virtual Training
  • Time: 12:00pm – 1:00pm EST
  • Dates: 07/07/2015

 Silence of All Virtues: Attorney-Client Privilege and Confidentiality in the Digital Age (07/08/2015-07/08/2015)

  • Class Type: Virtual Training
  • Time: 3:00pm – 4:00pm EST
  • Dates: 07/08/2015

Finding Out is Better: Effectively Using Technology for Factual Discovery (07/13/2015-07/13/2015)

One hour of general CLE credit

  • Class Type: Virtual Training
  • Time: 12:00pm – 1:00pm EST
  • Dates: 07/13/2015

What You Didn’t Know: Six Critical Steps in Medically Centered Litigation (07/14/2015-07/14/2015)

One hour of general CLE credit

  • Class Type: Virtual Training
  • Time: 3:00pm – 4:00pm EST
  • Dates: 07/14/2015

_______________________________________________________

 iTunes

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) – General by Suffolk University

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) – General .

____________________________________________________________________

Practising Law Institute (PLI)

Foreclosure Litigation – Real World Solutions That Work For Both Sides (2015)

Jul. 14, 2015

9:00 AM to 12: 30 PM Pacific

Three hours general credit

Register Now

Bankruptcy Basics for Low-Income Clients 2015

Webcast Sep. 15, 2015 Webcast

Six hours CLE credit

Pre-Register

______________________________________________________________________

CLE Online

__________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: “Burning oil lamp,” via Flickr by jd_09 at http://flickr.com/photos/45269441@N07/15738959845at Wikimedia Commons.

Law 17A Vermont man, was dismissed from jury duty this month when he showed up at the courthouse jury assembly room wearing a prison-striped costume and matching beanie. After being noticed, the judge met with him privately and asked him to leave. The Vermonter, James Lowe, was only too happy to oblige.

Some jury-selection experts think being verbal, subtle and biased are good ways to avoid getting picked. And then there’s Lowe and his costume.

Not so fortunate by comparison was Henderson, Nevada lawyer Kurt Smith who spent a night in jail over his attitude. “Thanks a lot,” he said after being chosen to serve on the jury for a scheduled three-day trial. Unfortunately, it was loud enough for District Court Judge Ron Israel to hear. Judge Israel called it a breach of the peace and held him in contempt.

The judge then ordered that Smith either watch the rest of the trial from the gallery or spend a night in lockup. Smith apologized and chose the gallery instead of a night in the pokey. But when the following day Smith showed up half-an-hour late for the resumption of the trial, the judge ordered him jailed for 48 hours. He was released after serving 24 hours.

Bad Dog! | by http://www.petsadviser.com

Rare indeed apparently is the lawyer unconvinced of their professional indispensability. That stuff may sell someplace else. But in one Nevada courtroom, the judge wasn’t buying it.

Many called, few chosen, and even more try to evade.

Clearly, George Bernard Shaw was wrong when he said “only lawyers and mental defectives were automatically exempt from jury duty.” Lawyers obviously get called although I can’t speak for the “mental defectives.” On the latter, some may have their suspicions.

As for myself, I’ve been called several times. Each time I was obediently poised to do my civic duty — but I was never chosen. The last time was a year ago here where a local newspaper previously headlined, “Most People Don’t Show Up For Jury Duty in Maricopa County.” Since then the local courts have cracked down on no-shows with a “get tough” policy. I can’t say how well it’s working.

The Jury by John Morgan.jpg

Chief Justice in the Jury Box.

Earlier this year, I read “A Justice on the Jury” in the Nevada State Bar’s, Nevada Lawyer. It was Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Gibbons’ first person account of being called and picked for jury service. According to court records, it was the first time a Nevada Supreme Court Justice had ever been seated as a juror in a jury trial in the state. Judge Gibbons served during a criminal trial in Carson City.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Jury_duty.jpg/320px-Jury_duty.jpgHe related how “waiting outside the courtroom, a newspaper reporter joked with me that I would probably be the first juror excused. To my great surprise, I was seated as juror number five, when the court resumed proceedings.” I don’t think he should have been surprised, though. After all, when you have the chief justice of the state supreme court in your jury pool, a lawyer is going to be hard-pressed to strike him with a peremptory challenge.

Courtroom 98Justice Gibbons said he learned a lot from the experience. And unlike some folks, he says he’d welcome a subsequent summons for jury duty.

And while he was gracious about how the proceedings were conducted, telling the judge afterward that he agreed with all of his rulings on objections during the trial, he nonetheless wasn’t shy about offering helpful tips and procedural improvement prescriptions for trial judges. These included creating “a checklist of all mandatory jury instructions that need to be submitted to the jury” and giving “special emphasis” to the juror admonishment instruction prohibiting independent research. Additionally, before commencement of deliberations, he would require jurors to re-read the jury instructions. And during the opening charge, he says he would acquaint the jury on basic courtroom procedures, including the use of expert witnesses and hypothetical questions.

So much for all those overly busy indispensables, including lawyers, if the chief justice can serve, well . . . .

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Photo credits: “The Jury by John Morgan” painted by John Morgan, uploaded to Wikipedia by Swampyank – The Jury by John Morgan.jpg. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Jury_by_John_Morgan.jpg#/media/File:The_Jury_by_John_Morgan.jpg; “Bad Dog!” by Pets Adviser at Flickr Creative Commons Attibution; “Jury Duty” by Steve Bott at Wikipedia via Creative Commons Attribution License.

A bite out of the bar.

mooning the neighbourhood | by Pixel Addict

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court took a bite out of dentists in North Carolina. And at the same time, the high court made state professional boards everywhere nervous, including mandatory state bars.

By a 6-3 vote in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, the Supreme Court imposed a higher hurdle for nonsovereign licensing boards to gain the state-action immunity that shields board members from federal antitrust liability.

Coincidentally, just a few years ago, a wise-cracking dentist friend had mentioned during a golf round how dentists were becoming annoyed over the growing number of non-dentists — mostly, cosmetologists, offering teeth-whitening services to the public. Beauticians were not only beautifying hair and skin but were now traipsing onto teeth territory and offering lower cost teeth-whitening services than dentists.

I only remember his story because, as a horse-owner, several years before, horse veterinarians around the country were trying to get non-veterinary dental lay practitioners (NVDLPs) banned from floating a horse’s teeth. The “float” is the name of the file used to smooth or contour a horse’s teeth and horse-shoers, self-taught cowpokes, and self-described ‘equine dental technicians’ had been biting into horse vet incomes by offering more affordable floating services.

A license for everyone?

When it comes to protecting turf, it’s always financial self-interest at the root of it. Never mind the chest and table pounding about protecting the public. No wonder an increasing number of everyday occupations hanker for licensing ‘protection.’ They think it heightens consumer perceptions of quality and increases demand. And of course, licensing restricts supply which translates into higher prices.

But in many instances, occupational licensing offers only an illusion of quality while doing little to actually protect consumers. Instead, occupational licensing simply creates self-serving barriers to entry, which makes the provided service more expensive and more unavailable.

And because it means additional revenue while offering a public protection sop to the electorate, government bureaucrats don’t mind creating more licensing categories to feed the bureaucratic maw. No wonder some call it a plague.

 

Tooth or Consequences in North Carolina.

So what happened in North Carolina is that its 8-member dental board made up of 6 licensed dentists elected by their fellow dentists, began sending out cease-and-desist letters to individual non-dentists and even to the North Carolina Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners warning them that under North Carolina law, the unlicensed practice of dentistry was a crime. And teeth-whitening was considered the practice of dentistry.

The cease-and-desist letters totaling 47 had their intended effect, chasing out the non-dentist teeth-whiteners out of the dental temple. But they also attracted the unwanted attention of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) who suspected the board’s actions weren’t motivated so much by high-mindedness about consumer protection as they were over non-dentist competitors gumming up revenues.

In the FTC’s view, where the regulatory agency has a “financial interest in the restraint [it] seeks to enforce” and is “controlled by private market participants who [stand] to benefit from the regulatory action,” the state action exemption required active supervision “in circumstances where the state agency’s decisions are not sufficiently independent from the entities that the agency regulates.”

As a consequence, the FTC concluded that the Board had to meet the active supervision requirement if it wanted to benefit from state-action immunity. “Because North Carolina law requires that six of the eight Board members be North Carolina licensed dentists, the Board is controlled by North Carolina licensed dentists.” Moreover, dentists perform teeth whitening.  Therefore, “Board actions in this area could be self interested.” You think? See “How a state dentistry board hounded non-dentist teeth-whiteners out of North Carolina” and Brief of Respondent Federal Trade Commission. 

A bite out of the bar. 

roger daltrey shows us why his primal scream from "won't get fooled again" is still the best in rock 'n roll | by greg westfall.

Why should lawyers care?

Because it may lead to more legal challenges given our over-regulated legal market. And it will engender more defiance against the host of anti-competitive actions taken by mandatory bar associations. Indeed, on June 3, 2015, Legal Zoom filed a $10.5M antitrust suit against the North Carolina Bar.

Some legal analysts even think it will mandate more “active supervision” of state bars by their state supreme courts. Said one, “the decision probably will lead to state supreme courts having stronger relationships with their state bars and oversight to see whether they are acting consistent with statutory authority or the authority granted by their state supreme court.” Still others think it might shake up unauthorized practice of law (UPL) restrictions and “revive challenges to UPL rules.” See PrawfsBlawg: Teeth Whitening for Lawyers

munch - it's a scream | by oddsock

Oh, woe. Oh, scream.

And claiming their work would be impaired, mandatory bars had predicted a parade of horribles in the wake of the decision. By denying them state action immunity under the Sherman Act, private regulatory boards with a controlling number of decision-makers actively participating in that profession, i.e., “market participants,” would be forced to act under a clearly articulated state policy and under active supervised by the state. “Active market participants,” the Court said, “cannot be allowed to regulate their own markets free from antitrust accountability.”  Oh, woe. Oh, scream.

 

Scream | by MooganicAs Amici Curiae in support of the North Carolina Dental Board, the North Carolina, Nevada, West Virginia and Florida State Bars had paraded the horribles in their Brief, including that “the limited resources available to prosecute lawyer misconduct and to prevent the unauthorized practice of law will be diverted to litigating whether the state bar’s action has been actively supervised in a manner sufficient to provide state action immunity.

Additionally, they predicted “State bars will have to defend expensive antitrust actions even though states explicitly authorize the state bars to regulate the conduct being challenged.” And worse, they claimed lawyers won’t want to serve on bar governing boards “for fear of being sued—and of being held individually liable—in treble-damage antitrust actions.” Last, they proclaimed those “who do agree to serve may be deterred from fulfilling their state-authorized enforcement duties against defendants who threaten antitrust claims.” 

The non-state agency state bar. 

Bite Me Bar Sign | by Sam HowzitStates are exempt from federal antitrust laws for their acts when acting in their sovereign capacities — even when those acts would violate antitrust laws if done by a private party. Not so state boards with active market participants who should now be treated like private entities and who to receive state-action immunity, must now meet the two-test requirement for private entity immunity: a clearly articulated anticompetitive statute and active supervision by the state.

The Scream | by adactio

As for the State Bar of Arizona, legal elites here have been pondering the implications of the North Carolina case, including whether or not to leaven the influence of active market participant lawyers with more non-lawyers on its governing board.

But in my opinion, there are likely more ominous reverberations than merely decreasing the number of foxes in the hen-house. As its website proclaims, the Arizona Bar proudly claims it’s “not a state agency.” So it would seem that as “a nonsovereign actor controlled by active market participants,” to avoid antitrust liability, it will have to work even harder now to satisfy the two requirements of clearly articulated state policy and active State supervision.

In Bates v. State Bar of Arizona 433 U.S. 350 (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Arizona Supreme Court’s rule restricting lawyer advertising violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments and ruled that commercial speech merited First Amendment protection. Admittedly, the nation’s high court went along with the Arizona Supreme Court’s determination in Bates that the Arizona Bar was immune from federal antitrust liability because in enforcing the Court’s then rule against lawyer advertising the Bar’s role had been “completely defined by the court” and moreover, the Bar acted “as the agent of the court under its continuous supervision.” 

After North Carolina Dental Board v. FTC, whether this will be true in every instance implicating anticompetitiveness should be worrisome for the non-state agency Arizona Bar particularly when Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (421 U.S. 773, 791 (1975) was also cited by the Court for the principle that while state bars are a state agency for some limited purposes, that fact does not create an “antitrust shield that allows it to foster anticompetitive practices for the benefits of its members.”

____________________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: “mooning the neighbourhood,” by Pixel Addict at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; “Roger Daltrey …” by greg westfall at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution;”Bite Me Bar Sign,” by Sam Howzit at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution;”Munch — it’s a scream,” by Ian Burt at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution;”The Scream,” by Jeremy Keith at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution;”Scream” by Mooganic at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 129 other followers