Requiring Public Oversight of Lawyer Regulation

​The U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC requires professions that regulate themselves to have "active state supervision" to avoid federal antitrust liability. Since most state bars are self-regulating, this decision has a major impact on them. Responsive Law believes that state bars need to be subject to oversight from the elected branches of government so that they can be responsive to the public, rather than to lawyers' perceived self-interest.

Letter to California Legislature in Opposition to AB 2483 (creating state-funded indemnification for antitrust violations by professional members of regulatory boards, co-signed by Center for Public Interest Law and CALPIRG) (June 20, 2018)

Comments on Occupational Licensure in the Legal Profession, Submitted to the Federal Trade Commission Economic Liberty Task Force (October 31, 2017)

Testimony on Concerns Regarding State Bar of California's Request for a Special Regulatory Assessment (October 17, 2016)

Testimony on Concerns Regarding Committee Analysis of Assembly Bill 2878  (August 11, 2016)

Testimony on California Assembly Bill 2878  (increasing public oversight of the State Bar of California) (June 22, 2016)

Comments on Issues Paper Concerning Unregulated Legal Service Providers, Submitted to the American Bar Association  (April 28, 2016)

Comments on Consumer Protection in the Wake of the Dental Examiners Decision, Submitted to the State Bar of California  (April 22, 2016) 

U.S. Supreme Court Brief in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC  (August 6, 2014)