United States v. Oregon State Bar
Citation | 385 F. Supp. 507 |
Decision Date | 25 November 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 74-362.,74-362. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. OREGON STATE BAR, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
James E. Figenshaw, Antitrust Div. Dept. of Justice, San Francisco, Cal., Sidney I. Lezak, U. S. Atty., District of Oregon, Portland, Ore., for plaintiff.
Manley B. Strayer of Davies, Biggs, Strayer, Stoel & Boley, Portland, Ore., for defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
The United States brings this civil action to enjoin the Oregon State Bar from further publication, distribution or suggestion of a schedule of attorneys' fees. The complaint is filed and jurisdiction obtained under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 4, alleging violation of Section 1 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The Government alleges that defendant and various of its members and officers are engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix prices. Only the Oregon State Bar is made a defendant to this suit.
The defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, asserting two legal defenses. First, defendant argues that the doctrine exempts its activities from Sherman Act scrutiny. Second, defendant claims that its activities are immune from antitrust suit by the "learned profession" exemption to the Sherman Act "trade or commerce" requirement.
The applicability of these two special exemptions is the only issue raised by defendant's motion. The Sherman Act validity of the fee schedule itself, viewed without regard to special exemptions, is not before the Court. The parties do not dispute any facts material to this motion.
In 1935 the Oregon legislature passed an act providing that all lawyers in the state must be members of the Oregon State Bar "which hereby is created an agency of the state to carry out the provisions of this Act." Ch. 28, Oregon Laws of 1935. Under the act as amended to date the Oregon State Bar is "a public corporation and an instrumentality of the Judicial Department of the government of the State of Oregon." O.R.S. 9.010.
A Board of Governors, elected by the membership, "is charged with the executive functions of the state bar and shall at all times direct its power to the advancement of the science of jurisprudence and the improvement of the administration of justice." O.R.S. 9.080. The Board of Governors is empowered, with the approval of the State Bar, to formulate rules of professional conduct; and when such rules are adopted by the Supreme Court, the Board has the power to enforce them. O.R.S. 9.490. Pursuant to this authorization, the Board of Governors formulated a Code of Professional Responsibility which was adopted by the Oregon Supreme Court on December 30, 1970, effective that date.1
Canon 2 of the Code states:
"A lawyer should assist the legal profession in fulfilling its duty to make legal counsel available."
Disciplinary Rule 2-106, which accompanies this canon, provides:
The State Bar is charged with the responsibility of investigating complaints as to the conduct of attorneys and filing its recommendations with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after notice and hearing, may affirm, adopt, modify, reverse or reject a recommendation; and may disbar, suspend or reprimand the attorney for breach of the statutory duties or the Code of Professional Responsibility. O.R.S. 9.541-9.580.
On June 1, 1969, the Oregon State Bar published and distributed to its members a "Schedule of Minimum Fees and Charges." This schedule was prepared by the Bar's Committee on Economics of Law Practice. The duties and responsibilities of this committee are not defined by statute nor by bylaws of the Bar.
On April 1, 1973, the Oregon State Bar published and distributed to its members a "schedule of Suggested Fees and Charges." This schedule was a revision of the 1969 schedule made by various permanent employees of the Bar.
Both the 1969 and 1973 schedules were adopted and approved by the Board of Governors. Neither schedule was adopted or approved by the Oregon Supreme Court nor by the Oregon State Legislature.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S.C. § 1, provides:
"Every contract, combination . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States . . . is hereby declared to be illegal . . .."
While "immunity from the antitrust laws is not lightly implied," California v. Federal Power Commission, 369 U.S. 482, 485, 82 S.Ct. 901, 903, 8 L.Ed.2d 54 (1962), an exemption from antitrust law coverage for the activities of a state was carved out by the Supreme Court thirty-one years ago. Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943). The defendant in the instant case argues that this state action doctrine exempts its activities from Sherman Act attack.
The dimensions of this state action exemption have never been clear. Much of the language in Parker v. Brown, supra, generates confusion rather than clarification. Thus, while the Court exempts "state action or official action directed by a state," it declares that "a state does not give immunity to those who violate the Sherman Act by authorizing them to violate it, or by declaring that their action is lawful." 317 U.S. at 351, 63 S.Ct. at 314.
The line between immunity and illegality can be made less uncertain by an examination of the facts in Parker. In that case, a producer and packer of raisins challenged the raisin proration marketing program established pursuant to the California Agricultural Prorate Act. The program severely restricted the free marketing of raisins. Several factors figured significantly in the Court's analysis. First, the California Agricultural Prorate Act specifically authorized the establishment of proration marketing programs which would restrain competition and maintain prices. Second, although private producers were involved in the petition for, formulation of, and administration of the program, the program was not effective until approved by a state commission following at least two public hearings. This commission was composed of the state Director of Agriculture and eight gubernatorial appointees. Third, the Court found that the California scheme dovetailed with the federal Agricultural Adjustment Act, which authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to impose similar marketing restrictions and which recognized the existence of state programs.
Thus, the Court stated, 317 U.S. at 350-351, 63 S.Ct. at 313:
The most recent discussion of Parker v. Brown is found in New Mexico v. American Petrofina, Inc., 501 F.2d 363 (9th Cir. 1974), where the court concluded that if a state itself is the defendant in an antitrust suit, no further analysis is required before dismissing the claim pursuant to the state action doctrine. However, when the state is not the named defendant, the court must engage in a comprehensive examination of the legislative will. The court stated, at pp. 369-370:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
UNITED STATES DENT. INST. v. American Ass'n of Orth.
...ordinarily defined as `trade', but embraces as well the field of the medical profession." In a recent case, United States v. Oregon State Bar, 385 F.Supp. 507, 516 (D.Ore.1974), the court similarly refused to create by judicial fiat a learned profession exemption to the Sherman Act. In a we......
-
Apitsch v. Patapsco & Back Rivers Railroad Co.
....... Civ. A. No. 74-135-N. . United States District Court, D. Maryland. . November 27, 1974. 385 F. Supp. ... coverage of the Act and to come instead under the provisions of a state workmen's compensation procedure; 2) that the underlying agreement between ......
-
Rousseau v. Eshleman
...as low as possible. There is no more commercial element to the practice of law than the setting of fees. United States v. Oregon State Bar, 385 F.Supp. 507, 517 (D.Or.1974). The way in which an attorney determines the price of legal services certainly involves the commercial aspects of the ......
-
Boddicker v. Arizona State Dental Ass'n, 75-1846
...(National Society rules prohibited members from engaging in competitive bidding for engineering services); United States v. Oregon State Bar, 385 F.Supp. 507 (D.Ore.1974) (minimum fee schedule); United States v. Nat'l Ass'n of Real Estate Bds., 339 U.S. 485, 70 S.Ct. 711, 94 L.Ed. 1007 (195......