LegalZoom files federal antitrust lawsuit against the North Carolina State Bar citing 2015 USSC dental board case
Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recentantitrust lawsuit filed on June 3, 2015 by LegalZoom against the North Carolina State Bar alleging antitrust violations. The case is LegalZoom.com, Inc. v. North Carolina State Bar, et al, (U.S. Middle District, North Carolina) Case No.: 1:15-CV-439. The formalComplaint (WSJ link) is at http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2015_0604_legalzoom.pdf.
The Complaint was filed on June 3, 2015 and seeks injunctive relief for antitrust violations as well as damages, claiming that the North Carolina State Bar is has “engaged in unauthorized and anticompetitive conduct illegally and unreasonably restraining trade in the Relevant Market” by prohibiting LegalZoom from offering prepaid legal services plans in that state. As support for the claims, the Complaint cites a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on the prohibition of non-dentists from providing teeth whitening services in North Carolina.
According to the Complaint, in 1991, the North Carolina state legislature “removed from the State Bar any power over prior and continuing approval of prepaid legal services plans, leaving to the State Bar only the ministerial task of keeping a registration list of plans sold in North Carolina. The State Bar, however, defied the Legislature. Over time, the State Bar unilaterally and ultra vires reassumed and exercised the power the Legislature had removed. The State Bar adopted – without legislative authority or active State supervision – a restrictive definition of what constitutes a prepaid legal services plan, and then began to refuse to ‘accept’ for registration plans that purportedly did not meet its own definition, excluding those plan providers from the Relevant Market.” The Complaint states that the Bar rules require the prepaid plans to be paid in advance of any immediate need, and any legal services provided must be provided by lawyers licensed in the state.
In support of the allegations, the Complaint cites the February 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, which is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-534_19m2.pdf. The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners opinion held that a dental regulatory board made up mostly of dentists does not have state-action immunity in an antitrust action and authorized a Federal Trade Commission challenge to the dental board’s prohibition of the provision of teeth whitening services by non-dentists. The opinion also found that when a state board is controlled by market participants in the occupation that it regulates, state-action antitrust immunity does not accrue unless the restraint of trade that is being challenged is affirmatively expressed as state policy and the policy is actively supervised by the state.
Bottom line: It should be very interesting to watch this case unfold. When the USSC opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission was rendered on February 25, 2015, there was much analysis/commentary in the media regarding the potential vulnerability of state Bars to an antitrust challenge if it could be shown that they were controlled by market participants (lawyers) in the occupation being regulated (the law). This appears to be the first shot across the bow. Stay tuned…
…and be careful out there.
As always, if you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding these or any other ethics, risk management, or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.
My law firm focuses on review, analysis, and interpretation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, advice and representation of lawyers in Bar disciplinary matters, defense of applicants for admission to The Florida Bar before the Board of Bar Examiners, defense of all Florida licensed professionals in discipline and admission matters before all state agencies and boards, expert ethics opinions, and practice management for lawyers and law firms. If there is a lawyer or other Florida professional license involved, I can defend the complaint or help you get your license.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (727) 799-1688 or e-mail me email@example.com. You can find my law firm on the web at www.jac-law.com. In addition to handling individual cases, matters, problems and issues for my clients, I also am on retainer to provide ethics advice to numerous lawyers and law firms throughout the state of Florida. I also provide legal assistance and advice to numerous individuals and non-legal entities to help insure compliance with the law and rules related to UPL and other issues.
You are receiving this ETHICS ALERT since you are a current or former client or you have requested that this Update be sent to you. Please note that you may opt in or out of receiving this ETHICS ALERT any time. If you would like to discontinue receipt of this ETHICS ALERT or if you would like to begin receiving it, simply send me an e-mail to me advising of your request.
If there are others at your firm who would like to be included on the distribution list, please feel free to forward this update to them or let us know in an email. If you would like to forward this Ethics Alert to any person or entity please feel free do so as long as it is not for personal gain and you forward the entire email, including all contact information and disclaimers.
Disclaimer: this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.
Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire
Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.
2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431
Clearwater, Florida 33759
Office (727) 799-1688
Fax (727) 799-1670