In an order dated June 1 and obtained by the Law Journal on Monday, June 4, the US Supreme Court denied a petition for certification by Consumers for a Responsive Legal System, an organization that represents Avvo and other online companies providing lawyer referrals.
The organization, called Responsive Law for short, had asked the court to review the June 2017 opinion, jointly issued by the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, the Committee on Attorney Advertising and the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, which found that Avvo facilitates improper fee-splitting and may not be utilized by New Jersey lawyers.
Opposing the petition were the Attorney General’s Office, representing the committees, and the New Jersey State Bar Association.
Responsive Law executive director Tom Gordon said in a statement Monday that the court, “by summarily declining to review the decision … has abrogated its responsibility to engage in active supervision of the bar’s anti-competitive conduct.”
“According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s [North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commision (2015)] decision, active supervision by a disinterested government agency is a prerequisite for antitrust immunity when policy decisions are made by market participants,” Gordon said. “The real losers here, though, are the people of New Jersey, who are being prevented from finding affordable lawyers online using the same tools they use to find doctors, babysitters, and mechanics.”
Full Content: New Jersey Law Journal
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
