Goldfarb V. Virginia State Bar: the Professions Are Subject to the Sherman Act

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Goldfarb V. Virginia State Bar: the Professions Are Subject to the Sherman Act Missouri Law Review Volume 41 Issue 1 Winter 1976 Article 6 Winter 1976 Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar: The Professions Are Subject to the Sherman Act Richard B. Tyler Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard B. Tyler, Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar: The Professions Are Subject to the Sherman Act, 41 MO. L. REV. (1976) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol41/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tyler: Tyler: Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar: MISSOURI LAW REVIEW Volume 41 Winter 1976 Number 1 GOLDFARB V. VIRGINIA STATE BAR: THE PROFESSIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SHERMAN ACT Richard B. Tyler* I. INTRODUCTION "The nature of an occupation, standing alone, does not provide sanctuary from the Sherman Act ... nor is the public service aspect of professional practice controlling in determining whether § 1 includes professions. ..." With these words, the United States Supreme Court established the applicability of the Sherman Act 2 to the "learned pro- fessions." The import of the Court's holding has not been lost on the anti- trust enforcement agencies. They have recently filed suit or announced in- vestigations of the activities of other professional organizations.3 Some professionals, on the other hand, have attempted to read the decision OAsst. Prof. of Law, University of Missouri-Columbia; B.S., United States Military Academy, 1954; M.S., Purdue University, 1960; J.D., University of Min- nesota, 1967. 1. Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 95 S. Ct. 2004, 2013 (1975) (citations omitted). 2. Sherman Act ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7 (1970). 3. On Sept. 22, 1975, the Justice Department filed suit (Civ. No. 75-4640) in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York against the American Society of Anesthesiologists, challenging the Society's promulgation of "relative value guides," which establish monetary values for particular pro- cedures by anesthesiologists and are used by the Society's members to determine fees. Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, Sept. 23, 1975, at 5, col. 2. The next day, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it is investigating restraints on price advertising by the eyeglass industry. Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, Sept. 24, 1975, at 14, col. 2. More recently, the Federal Trade Commission has begun an investigation of the practice of veterinary medicine, CCH TRADE REG. REP. f 10,167 (1976), and has brought suit against the physician's ethical bans on advertising, American Medical Assn, CCH TRADE REG. RE. ff 21,068 (1976). For its part, the Justice Department prevailed at the district court level in its suit challenging the Na- tional Society of Professional Engineers' ethical ban on price competition, United States v. National Soc'y of Prof. Engrs., 1975-2 TRA.DE CA.s. ff 60,604 (D.D.C. 1975), and is pursuing an investigation into possible agreements in restraint of trade among Texas accountants, Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, Dkt. 75-531, CCH TRADE REG. REP. ff 60,021 (1975). Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository, 1976 1 Missouri Law Review, Vol. 41, Iss. 1 [1976], Art. 6 MISSOURI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 41 even more narrowly than Chief Justice Burger appears to have written it, in an effort to salvage some practices of professional organizations. 4 Despite, or perhaps because of, the Chief Justice's attempt to limit the holding to the facts before the Court, the decision raises more ques- tions than it answers. For example, it is not certain that the decision can be interpreted restrictively. It dearly applies to other professions, as well as to attorneys. The actual scope of the Sherman Act's applicability to other types of professional practices also remains to be delineated in further litigation. Such practices as "advisory" fee schedules, professional licensing restrictions, limits on solicitation and advertising, and boycotts of other, closely related groups will almost certainly be challenged in time, although the present emphasis appears -to be on mandatory fee arrangements for professional services. This article will review briefly the holding and logic of Goldfarb, and consider some of its implications for practices com- mon to most professions. It should be recognized at the outset that there may be other bases on which to challenge particular professional practices, such as infringe- ment of first amendment rights5 or violation of section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. 6 Such additional theories, however, are beyond the scope of this article. II. THE GOLDFARB HOLDING7 In 1971 Lewis and Ruth Goldfarb contracted to buy a house in Vir- ginia and contacted an attorney to have the title examined. After he quoted them a fee precisely equal to that suggested in the minimum fee schedule published by the Fairfax County Bar Association, they tried to find an attorney who would examine the title for -less. They wrote 36 attorneys, requesting quotations of their fees. Nineteen replied, none in- dicating that he would charge less than the minimum fee set forth in the schedule; some said that they knew of no attorney who would charge less. The Fairfax County Bar Association, a voluntary association, had no formal power to enforce the schedule. The Virginia State Bar Association, to which all attorneys practicing in Virginia are required to belong, pro- vided the enforcement. The State Bar is the administrative agency of the Virginia Supreme Court for the regulation of the practice of law in Vir- ginia. 8 "The State Bar had never taken formal disciplinary action to. com- pel adherence to any fee schedule, but it published reports in 1962 and 4. See, e.g., Jeffers, Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar: A Narrow Decision, 38 TExAs B. J. 701 (1975). 5. See, e.g., Virginia Citizens Consumer Counsel, Inc. v. State Board of Pharmacy, 373 F. Supp. 683 (E.D. Va. 1974), cert. granted, 43 U.S.L.W. 3493 (Mar. 18, 1975) (a state statute forbidding advertising prescription drug prices held to.violate the first amendment). 6. See Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973). 7. 'The statement of facts and procedural history are taken from the Su- preme Court opinion, 95 S. Ct. at 2007-09. 8. VA. CoDE ANN. § 54.49 (Supp. 1974). https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol41/iss1/6 2 Tyler: Tyler: Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar: 1976]. : ANTITRUST AND THE PROFESSIONS 1969 condoning fee schedules, and issued two ethical opinions9 which in- dicated. that fee schedules could not be ignored. The second opinion stated that habitually charging less than the suggested minimum fee schedule adopted by a local bar association raised a presumption of pro- fessional misconduct. The Goldfarbs had the title examined by the attorney they had first contacted and then brought a class action against the State and County Bar Associations, charging that the minimum fee schedule was a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.10 The district court, trying the issue of liability, held that the minimum fee schedule did violate the Sherman Act and enjoined the use of the schedule, setting the case down for trial to ascertain damages.3" The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed as to liability.' 2 Although it agreed that the fee schedule and the enforcement mechanism supporting it substantially restrained com- petition among attorneys practicing in Fairfax County, it nevertheless exemt ted the State Bar on the ground that it was immuiie under the doc- trine of "'state action" set forth in Parker v. Brown.'3 The court held the County Bar immune because it found that the practice of law was not "trade or commerce," a prerequisite to the application of the Sherman Act.'The majority opinion also recognized a limited exclusion of "learned professions" from the antitrust laws, based upon the special regulation the states impose on the professions, and the fact that some normal com- petitive practices might be inconsistent with such regulation. The ap- pellate court concluded that the fee schedule was one area in which the needs of professional regulation conflicted with the requirements of the antitrust laws, and held the practice of law exempt from the Sherman Act. 'Alternatively, the Fourth Circuit found that the activities of the State and County Bar did not have sufficient impact on interstate com- merce to support jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.1 4 The Court said that the issue was "whether the Sherman Act ap- plies 'to services performed by attorneys in examining titles in connection with financing the purchase of real estate."' 5 The Court pursued a four- step analysis: (1) Did the challenged activities amount to price fixing?; (2) If so, were these activities in interstate commerce, or did they affect 9. Virginia State Bar Committee on Legal Ethics, Opinion No. 98 (June 1, 1960); Virginia State Bar Committee on Legal Ethics, Opinion No. 170 (May 28, 1971). 10. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. ... 15 U.S.C. § 1 (1970). 11. 355 F. Supp. 491 (E.D. Va. 1973). 12. 497 F.2d 1 (4th Cir.
Recommended publications
  • Washington Legal Found V. Massachusetts Bar Found.'S Faulty Analysis of Attorneys' First Amendment Rights Risa I
    Journal of Law and Policy Volume 2 | Issue 1 Article 6 1994 Iolta's Last Obstacle: Washington Legal Found v. Massachusetts Bar Found.'s Faulty Analysis of Attorneys' First Amendment Rights Risa I. Sackmary Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp Recommended Citation Risa I. Sackmary, Iolta's Last Obstacle: Washington Legal Found v. Massachusetts Bar Found.'s Faulty Analysis of Attorneys' First Amendment Rights, 2 J. L. & Pol'y (1994). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol2/iss1/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Law and Policy by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. IOLTA'S*LAST OBSTACLE: WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUND. V. MASSACHUSETTS BAR FOUND.'S" FAULTY ANALYSIS OF ATTORNEYS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS Risa I. Sackmary**s INTRODUCTION Thomas Jefferson once stated that "[t]o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."' These words ring just as true today. When the State compels individuals to support organizations which are contrary to their political or ideological views, it violates their constitutional rights.2 Thus, due to the element of compulsion, mandatory Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts programs (IOLTA) -- which require attorneys to use their clients' money to support various organizations 3 -- directly violate * In Massachusetts, the program is called IOLTA, Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts. Although other jurisdictions refer to this program as IOLA (Interest on Lawyers' Accounts) or IOTA (Interest on Trust Accounts), this Comment will use the Massachusetts terminology throughout.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Wyoming State Bar
    Land & Water Law Review Volume 16 Issue 1 Article 14 1981 Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Wyoming State Bar Wyoming State Bar Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water Recommended Citation Wyoming State Bar (1981) "Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Wyoming State Bar," Land & Water Law Review: Vol. 16 : Iss. 1 , pp. 333 - 360. Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water/vol16/iss1/14 This Wyoming Bar Proceeding is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Land & Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. Wyoming State Bar: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Wyoming State Bar University of Wyoming College of Law LAND AND WATER LAW REVIEW VOLUME XVI 1981 NUMBER 1 MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE WYOMING STATE BAR September 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1980 Jackson, Wyoming The 39th Annual Meeting of the Integrated Bar and the 65th Annual Meeting of the Wyoming State Bar was called to order by President Thomas E. Lubnau at 9:00 a.m. on September 5, 1980, at the Ramada Snow King Inn, Jackson, Wyoming. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried, the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting was dispensed with. REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT Members of the Wyoming State Bar: As provided by Article II, Section 2 of the By-Laws of the Wyo- ming State Bar, I would like to report to you on the activities of our Bar for the past year.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Committee Virginia State
    Virginia State Bar Special Committee THE FUTURE OF LAW PRACTICE 2019 2 Virginia State Bar l Future of Law Practice Committee ©2019 1 1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................2 TECHNOLOGY AND THE PRACTICE OF LAW .................................................4 2.1 Cybersecurity ......................................................................................................................................................................5 2.2 Current Cybersecurity Statistics .......................................................................................................................................5 2.3 Cyberinsurance and the Morphing of Threats ................................................................................................................7 2 2.4 Cybersecurity Standards ...................................................................................................................................................8 2.5 Data Loss Through Employees .........................................................................................................................................9 2.6 Why are Law Firms So Far Behind in Cybersecurity? ..................................................................................................10 2.7 Encryption ..........................................................................................................................................................................10 2.8 Cloud Computing
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia State Bar MCLE Accredited Sponsors These Sponsors Have a History of Virginia Approved Programs
    Virginia State Bar MCLE Accredited Sponsors These sponsors have a history of Virginia approved programs. (Please contact sponsors directly for registration information.) CAUTION: Programs by out-of-state providers may advertise credit for courses that do not meet Virginia’s approval standards under MCLE Regulation 103 and the MCLE Board Opinions. SPONSORS MAY NOT APPLY IN VIRGINIA FOR ALL OF THE COURSES THEY OFFER. The Virginia State Bar is not responsible for content on sponsor websites. SPONSOR PHONE WEBSITE ACC National Capital Region 301-230-1864 www.acc.com/chapters/ncr/ Access MCLE 877-757-6253 www.accessmcle.com Alexandria Bar Association 703-548-1106 www.alexandriabarva.org ALI CLE – American Law Institute 800-253-6397 www.ali-cle.org ALM 212-457-7905 www.almevents.com American Association of Justice 800-622-1791 www.justice.org American Bankruptcy Institute 703-739-0800 www.abi.org American Bar Association 800-285-2221 www.americanbar.org/cle.html American Conference Institute 888-224-2480 www.americanconference.com American Health Lawyers Association 202-833-1100 www.healthlawyers.com American Immigration Lawyers Assoc. 202-507-7600 www.aila.org American Intellectual Property Assoc. 703-415-0780 www.aipla.org American Society of International Law 202-939-6000 www.asil.org American Society of Law, Medicine & 617-262-4990 www.aslme.org American University WCL 202-274-4075 www.wcl.american.edu/secle Arlington County Bar Association 703-228-3390 www.arlingtonbar.org Attorney Credits 877-910-6253 www.attorneycredits.com Attorney
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 25 No. 5 Sep/Oct 2012 FALL FORUM
    FALL FORUM Sep/Oct 2012 5 25No. Volume November 8-9 Utah Bar® JOURNAL EISENBERG GILCHRIST & CUTT TTORNEYS AT AW Results Matter Some of our successes in 2011 include: More than 300 lawyers have referred injured clients to • $5.0 million recovery for trucking accident Eisenberg Gilchrist & Cutt because they know we get top results. We approach every case as a serious piece of litigation, • $4.0 million recovery for product liability case whether it is worth $100,000 or $10 million. • $2.8 million recovery for carbon monoxide case • $2.5 million recovery for auto-wrongful death Call us if you have a new injury case or want to bring • $1.5 million jury verdict for ski accident case experience to a pending case. We tailor fee arrangements to • $1.1 million recovery for medical malpractice suit your clients’ needs, and we help fund litigation costs. Let our experience add value to your case. 900 PARKSIDE TOWER • 215 SOUTH STATE STREET • SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TEL: 801-366-9100 TOL-FREE: 877-850-3030 WWW.EISENBERGANDGILCHRIST.COM FOUNDING PARTNERS ARE JEFFREY D. EISENBERG, ROBERT G. GILCHRIST AND DAVID A. CUTT Table of Contents Utah Ba President’s Message: Looking Ahead 6 by Lori W. Nelson EISENBERG GILCHRIST & CUTT Commission Message: Modest Means Lawyer Referral Program: TTORNEYS AT AW How You Can Make this Program Work for Your Practice 10 r by Hon. Su J. Chon ® Article: Twombly and Iqbal: How the Supreme Court has Radically Redefined Access to the Federal Courts 12 by Aaron S. Bartholomew JOURNAL Article: The New Respect for Justice George Sutherland 18 by Andrew M.
    [Show full text]
  • Bostonbarjournala Publication of the Boston Bar Association
    FALL 2009 BostonBarJournalA Publication of the Boston Bar Association Timely Justice Threatened by Fiscal Challenges A Move to Streamline the Civil Justice System Crawford Comes to the Lab: Melendez-Diaz and the Scope of the Confrontation Clause Residual Class Action Funds: Supreme Court Identifies IOLTA as Appropriate Beneficiary Challenges and Opportunities for New Lawyers Maintaining Client Confidences: Developments at the Supreme Judicial Court and First Circuit in 2009 If Pro Bono is Not an Option, Consider Volunteering GROW YOUR 401(k) WISELY Six things you won’t hear from other 401(k) providers... We were created as a not-for-profit 1. entity, and we exist to provide a benefit We leverage the buying power of the 2. ABA to eliminate firm expenses and minimize participant expenses Our fiduciary tools help you manage 3. your liabilities and save valuable time Our investment menu has three tiers to 4. provide options for any type of investor, and our average expense is well below the industry average for mutual funds We eliminated commissions, which erode 5. your savings, by eliminating brokers We have benefit relationships with 29 6. state bar and 2 national legal associations.* LEARN HOW No other provider has more than one. YOU CAN * Alabama State Bar Illinois State Bar Association State Bar of Nevada Rhode Island Bar Association GROW YOUR State Bar of Arizona Indiana State Bar Association New Hampshire Bar Association State Bar of Texas Arkansas Bar Association Iowa State Bar Association State Bar of New Mexico Vermont Bar Association
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Paid and Group Legal Services: Thirty Years After the Storm
    Fordham Law Review Volume 70 Issue 3 Article 9 2001 Pre-Paid and Group Legal Services: Thirty Years After the Storm Judith L. Maute Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Judith L. Maute, Pre-Paid and Group Legal Services: Thirty Years After the Storm, 70 Fordham L. Rev. 915 (2001). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol70/iss3/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pre-Paid and Group Legal Services: Thirty Years After the Storm Cover Page Footnote Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma. Invaluable research assistance was provided by Jonathan Grant Ellis (J.D. expected 2003, University of Oklahoma). Donald T. Bogan generously shared his understanding of the health care industry and ERISA. The University of Oklahoma provided research support. Of course, any mistakes or omissions are those of the author. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol70/iss3/9 IPRE-PAID AND GROUP LEGAL SERVICES: THIRTY YEARS AFTER THE STORM Judith L. Maute* INTRODUCTION Middle America considers reasonable access to adequate and affordable health care to be a necessity of life. Government- subsidized care provides a minimal safety net for the poor, disabled, elderly or underemployed who cannot afford either private health care insurance or medical care on a fee-for-services basis.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    INTRODUCTION Nationally, approximately 40% of new attorneys work at firms consisting of more than 50 lawyers. Therefore, a large percentage of practicing attorneys work for small firms (fewer than 50 attorneys). Small firms generally do not have formalized recruiting procedures or a set “hiring season” when they recruit summer law clerks, school-year law clerks, or entry-level attorneys. Instead, these firms hire on an as-needed basis, and they hire year round. To secure employment with a small firm, students and lawyers alike need to be proactive in getting their name and interests out in the community. Applicants should not only apply directly to these firms, but they should connect via law school, community, and bar association activities. In this directory, you will find state-by-state hyperlinks to regional directories, bar associations, newspapers, and job banks that can be used to jump-start a small firm search. ALABAMA State/Regional Bar Associations Alabama Bar Association: http://www.alabar.org Birmingham Bar Association: http://www.birminghambar.org Mobile Bar Association: http://www.mobilebar.org Specialty Bar Associations Alabama Defense Lawyers Association: http://www.adla.org Alabama Trial Lawyers Association: http://www.alabamajustice.org Major Newspapers Birmingham News: http://www.al.com/birmingham Mobile Register: http://www.al.com/mobile Legal & Non-Legal Resources & Publications State Lawyers.com: http://alabama.statelawyers.com EINNEWS: http://www.einnews.com/alabama Birmingham Business Journal: http://birmingham.bizjournals.com
    [Show full text]
  • Thel SOUTH CAROLINA LAW QUARTERLY
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 5 Issue 4 Article 2 6-1953 South Carolina Bar Association Annual Meeting Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation (1953) "South Carolina Bar Association Annual Meeting," South Carolina Law Review: Vol. 5 : Iss. 4 , Article 2. Available at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol5/iss4/2 This Conference Proceeding is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. et al.: South Carolina Bar Association Annual Meeting THEl SOUTH CAROLINA LAW QUARTERLY BAR ASSOCIATION TRANSACTIONS SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING Held at the Clemson House, Clemson, S. C. With the Bar Associations of Anderson, Oconee and Pickens Counties As Hosts May 14-16, 1953 MINUTES Thursday, May 14, 1953 The fifty-ninth annual meeting of the South Carolina Bar Asso- ciation was called to order by the President, Honorable William Brantley Harvey, at 3:00 p. m., and after welcoming the members he presented Honorable William Law Watkins of the Anderson Bar as a representative of the host committee. Mr. Watkins welcomed the Association and announced some of the entertainment events. The President presented W. Croft Jennings, Esq., Chairman of the Tax Section of the Association, who then presided while this Section held a symposium on the subject of Estate Planning. Mr. Jennings introduced Mr. and Mrs. Howe P. Cochran of the Wash- ington and New York Bars.
    [Show full text]
  • July 2006 Vol.67, No
    -. • . I ~* ~/~~ : 0ur Success! * 't*" 1~ its insureds. Isn't it time you JOINED THE MOVEMENT and insured with AIM? AIM: For the Difference! Attorneys Insurance Mutual of Alabama, Inc. 200 Inverness Parkway Telephone (205) 980-0009 Toll Free (800) 526-1246 Birmingham , Alabama 35242-4813 FAX (205) 980-9009 Service • Strength • Sec u rity [ml -UT.lffl ISI ALABAMA --ll dh•iJion o/-- [NS URAN CE SPECIALISTS, INC. ISi ALABAMA, a division of Insurance Specialists, Inc . ( ISi), in its fift h decade of service to the national association marketplace, is proud to have maintained service to the Alabama State Bar since 1972. ISi is recogni7.£<1as a leader among affinity third party administrators, and maintains strong affiliations with leading carriers of its specialty products. Association and affi.nity gro ups provide added value to Membership benefits through offerings of these qua.lity insurance plans tailored to meet the needs of Members. INSURANCE PROGRAMS AVAILABLE TO ALABAMA STATE BAR MEMBERS Select tlie products tlrat you want i11formatio11011 from tlie list below, complete tlie form and retum via fax or mail. Tlrere is 110 obligation. 0 Long Term Disability 0 AccidentaJ Death & Dismemberment Plan D Individual Tenn Life 0 Business Overhead Expense 0 Hospital Income Plan D Medica re Supp lement Plan Alahlnu S1:1teBnt Mt:fflbn N11mc AJI< Spou~NarM ,.,.. ' ordq)c-ndcntJ OffictAddtffl (Sum, Ory.Sr,1tt,Zip) OfficePhone HomePhone Fu Q«upat1on E-mailAddm.a: 0,/1 me for 011 appointmelllto discwscoverage at: O Home D Office RETURN COMPLETED REPLY CARD TO: Fax: 843-525-9992 Mail:[$[ ADMINISTRATIVBCENTBII • SALES · P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • “Standing” Page 360
    September 2012 | Volume 73, Number 5 The Malignant Mystique of “Standing” Page 360 2012-13 ASB PRESIDENT PHILLIP W. M CCALLUM AND FAMILY One malpractice insurer is still here and continues to maintain stable premium rates! AIM: For the Difference! Attorneys Insurance Mutual Telephone (205) 980-0009 of the South ® Toll Free (800) 526-1246 200 Inverness Parkway FAX (205) 980-9009 Birmingham, Alabama 35242 -4813 www.AttyslnsMu t.com THOMSON REUTERS WESTLAW. A CLEARVIEW INTO KEY INFORMATION AND CONNECTIONS IN YOUR CASE WITH WESTLAW CASENOTEBOOK UseWestlaw Case Notebook to efficientlymake connections among key fac1s,documents, transcripts, and research In your case. Then use it 10organize all this caseinformation the way you need to achieveclearly Impressiveresults. For more information,visit store.westlaw.com/casenotebook Westlaw Caselogl:r.tix.~ West kn,' Westl•w Case Notebook "' Westlaw' Drafting Assistant THOMSON REUTERS SEPTEMBER 21 Damagesand Remedies - Tuscaloosa OCTOBER ,______,., LIVESEMINARS 5 AlabamaProbate Law: The Administration of Estates Registerat CLEalabama.com - Tt1scaloosa or call 800.627.6514or 12-13 19thAnnual Family Law Retreat to the Beach 205.348.6230for more - OrangeBeach information. 19 WhatEvery Real Estate Lawyer Needs to Know - Tt1scat00&1 CAN'TATIEND IN 25 MandatoryProfessional ism Course- Montgomery 26 Social SecurityDisability Law - Tuscaloosa PERSON? Checkout our otheropportunities. NOVEMBER Webcasts: Manyof our fall seminarsw ill bewebcast. Watch 2 MandatoryProfessional ism Course- Birmingham the seminaras
    [Show full text]
  • DOCUMENT RESUME ED 364 487 SO 023 626 TITLE State and Local
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 364 487 SO 023 626 TITLE State and Local Bar Associations Law-Related Education Activities. INSTITUTION American Bar Association, Chicago, Ill. Special Committee on Youth Education for Citizenship. PUB DATE [93] NOTE 26p.; For related items, see SO 023 625-628. AVAILABLE FROMAmerican Bar Association, Special Committee on Youth Education for Citizenship, 541 N. Fairbanks Court, Chicago, IL 60611-3314. PUB TYPE Reference Materials - Directories/Catalogs (132) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Alcohol Education; Drug Education; Elementary Secondary Education; *Law Related Education; Lawyers; *Learning Activities; Professional Associations; School Community Relationship; Social Studies; *Youth Programs IDENTIFIERS American Bar Association; Law Day ABSTRACT This document is a listing of the law-related education activities of state and local bar associations grouped by state. Under each state, the state association and often one or more local association are listed. Information on each association includes committees relating to law related education, a listing of law related education activities, funding sources, and the name, address, and phone number of the appropriate contact person. Some association listings also include volunteer recruitment strategies and resources. Listed activities include Law Day, mediation, Lawyer in the Classroom, teen court, mock trials, court docent, bicentennial, teacher education, programs f,31- at-risk youth, and drug prevention projects. The most common funding sources include general operating budgets, bar foundation grants, senior bar funding, Young Lawyers Section activity budgets, and organization dues. Volunteers are recruited by personal appeals, contacts for specific projects, publicity of projects, volunteer sign up sheets in dues packets, special invitations, and articles in organization newsletters.
    [Show full text]