Taiwan Bar Association (TBA)

Case:

Key Words:

attorney, online platform, legal services

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission decision of April 21, 2010 (the 963rd Commissioners' Meeting); Disposition Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 099060

Industry:

Legal Service Industry (6911)

Relevant Laws:

Article 14 the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. Lifelaw Co., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the informer) informed the FTC that Taiwan Bar Association (hereinafter referred to as TBA) achieved decision at its 3rd Meeting of the 8th Executive Directors of TBA to notify all local bar associations to request their members to withdraw as quickly as possible from the online legal consultation platform set up by the informant with the purpose of providing legal services. As a result, Hsinchu Bar Association, Taipei Bar Association and Taichung Bar Association respectively on April 8, 14 and 15 passed the message to their members and requested those already providing legal services on the said platform to withdraw from the operation as quickly as possible. The conduct was considered as in violation of the Fair Trade Law.
2. Findings of the FTC after investigation: Due to advancements in Internet and telecommunications technologies, it has become possible for attorneys at law to provide legal services through the Internet and telephone and fulfilled consumers' needs of legal consultation services. This has been a new legal service channel and supply-demand matching through online platforms can reduce the transaction cost, increase consumers' options and economic benefits. There is no regulation in the Attorney Regulation Act on channels through which attorneys at law can provide legal services. Hence, attorneys at law have the liberty to provide consultation services through their own websites or through online platforms such as the one set up by the informer. According to the opinion of Ministry of Justice and Taipei District Prosecutors Office, investigation findings and existing evidences, the online platform set up by the informer and the recruitment of attorneys at law to provide legal consultation services did not appear to be in violation of Article 48 and Article 50 of the Attorney Regulation Act. Therefore, TBA's decision and written notification to inform local bar associations to request their members to withdraw from the legal consultation service platform was an act of restriction on the choice of channels of attorneys at law to provide legal services. It deprived the opportunities of attorneys at law to participate in fair competition and night put an end to the market developed with technological creativity to facilitate supply-demand matching.
3. Grounds for Disposition:
   1. TBA is an organization as described in Subsection 3 of Article 2 of the Fair Trade Law. The 3rd Meeting of the 8th Executive Directors was indeed convened to discuss the reply from the Ministry of Justice regarding the informer's online platform and recruitment of common members (private citizens) and specialist members (attorneys at law) is not against Article 48 of the Attorney Regulation Act. A resolution was reached and written notifications were sent on April 1 to local bar associations to inform their members that anyone already participating in the operation of the informer's platform was advised to withdraw as quickly as possible.
   2. TBA is composed of local bar associations in accordance with the regulation of Subparagraph 3 of Article 11 of the Attorney Regulation Act. As stipulated in Articles 11, 39 and 40 of the same act, an attorney at law is not entitled to practice until he/she has become a member of a bar association and an attorney at law in serious violation of the attorney code of ethics may be sanctioned by the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee upon the resolution of the Bar Association Assembly or the Joint Council of Bar Association Directors and Supervisors. The above, put together, means a bar association has rather significant influence on the practice of an attorney at law. When Hsinchu Bar Association, Taipei Bar Association and Taichung Bar Association received and forwarded the resolution of TBA to their members, some attorneys at law did withdraw from the legal consultation platform set up by the informer. Therefore, the conduct of TBA was indeed an act of restriction on the activity of these attorneys at law. The action of TBA, in addition to restricting the professional activities of the attorneys at law already providing legal services through the online platform set up by the informer, would also make other attorneys at law to give up their interest in providing legal consultation services through the online platform set up by the informer or similar operations established by other enterprises and thus decrease the number of opportunities for consumers to choose legal services through various transaction channels. Without question, this conduct already affected the supply-demand function of the domestic legal service market and was in violation of Subparagraph 1 of Article 14 of the Fair Trade Law concerning that “No enterprise shall have any concerted act" TBA was therefore imposed a fine of NTD500,000.

Summarized by: Lai, Mei Hua Supervised by: Chen, Yuhn Shan