Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: ABA not liable for using monopoly power to preclude individuals from appearing in court, (Dec 9, 2014)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

The founder and CEO of an informational website failed to state Sherman Act and Cartwright Act claims against the American Bar Association for allegedly organizing a monopoly that allegedly precluded individuals from appearing as counsel before federal courts, the federal district court in San Diego has held. The claims were dismissed with prejudice (Greenspan v. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, December 4, 2014, Miller, J.).

Think Computer Foundation and Think Computer Corporation operate PlainSite.org, which compiles government information, including information from the courts via PACER, and makes that information more accessible to the public. The American Bar Association (ABA) is the alleged “sole entity responsible for the accreditation of law schools within the United States.” The CEO of Think Computer Corporation and Think Computer Foundation alleged that the ABA violated the Sherman Act and California Cartwright Act.

The court dismissed Think Computer Foundation and Think Computer Corporation from this action without prejudice. The parties would be dismissed with prejudice unless they retain legal representation and counsel files a Notice of Appearance within 60 days. Although a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel, Think Computer argued that it was too expensive, burdensome, and unnecessary to retain counsel. The court declined to deviate from established law, and Think Counsel was unable to provide contrary legal authority. The court also rejected the argument that the First Amendment granted corporations a free speech right to appear in federal court without legal representation.

Sherman Act claim. The court dismissed the Sherman Act claim against the ABA with prejudice. The ABA allegedly violated the Sherman Act by limiting “the number of ABA-accredited law schools issuing degrees” and lobbying for “Restrictive Local Rules” and had “monopoly power in the submarket for individuals capable of representing corporations before the federal courts, as well as in the market for legal professionals.” To state a Sherman Act monopolization claim, a plaintiff must show monopoly power in the relevant market, the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, and an antitrust injury. The ABA’s so-called monopoly power allegedly kept an otherwise qualified prospective legal professional from obtaining a license to practice law without attending an ABA-certified law school. However, the CEO of Think Computer failed to articulate any unlawful conduct or any harm arising from the unidentified unlawful conduct. He failed to allege that the antitrust laws were intended to restrict associations, like the ABA, to comment upon and promote procedural or substantive rules, statutes, or regulations or that he was a consumer of ABA’s services.

Cartwright Act claim. The ABA was also granted dismissal of the Cartwright Act claim with prejudice. The Cartwright Act generally prohibits any combinations or agreements that restrain trade or competition or fix or control prices. The CEO of Think Computer failed to allege the operation of a conspiracy or any illegal activities taken by the ABA. The CEO could not allege that he suffered any damages because the companies, and not the CEO, spent $50,000 on attorney’s fees as a result of the ABA’s allegedly unlawful activity.

The case is No. 14cv2396 JTM.

Attorneys: Aaron Jacob Greenspan, pro se. Justin Michael Sandberg, U.S. Department of Justice, for Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Bety Javidzad (Venable LLP) for American Bar Association.

Companies: Think Computer Foundation; Think Computer Corp.; American Bar Association

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews