Taipei Bar Association

Case:

Key Word(s):

Legal consultation service, fee standard, Bar Association

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of February 27, 2013 (the 1112nd Commissioners' Meeting)

Industry:

Professional Associations (9422)

Relevant Law(s):

Article 14(1) of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. The FTC had decided that the Taipei Bar Association had violated Article 14 (1) of the Fair Trade Law for printing and issuing notices to request its "members to charge consultation fees according to established rates" and ordered the association to cease the unlawful act via Disposition Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 100016 dated February 18, 2011. The Taipei Bar Association found the decision unacceptable and filed an appeal to the Executive Yuan. The Executive Yuan revoked the above original sanction and instructed the FTC to make a more appropriate decision.

2. Findings of the FTC after investigation:
   

   During the investigation conducted by the FTC, the Taipei Bar Association contested that the issuance of the notices had been legally justifiable and thus it had not been a concerted action as described in the Fair Trade Law. At the same time, the association had stopped actively issuing the notices after the board of directors and supervisors had made decision against it in a meeting held on December 9, 2010.

3. Grounds for disposition:
   

   After further examination and analysis, the FTC concluded that, according to the findings of its previous investigation, since the lawyers interviewed had all concurred that the consultation fee to be charged depended on the complexity of each case and other considerations, it was therefore difficult to prove whether the said notices had really affected the consultation fees to be collected by lawyers. Meanwhile, according to the statement offered by the Taipei Bar Association, its board of directors and supervisors had decided against active issuance of the said notices. This meant the association had rectified its conduct and there was no need to impose any sanction. Moreover, as set forth in the Attorney Regulation Act, bar associations may establish its standards of consultation fees to be collected. As the notices issued by the Taipei Bar Association did not contain either the bottom or upper limit of consultation fees to be collected, the conduct in question therefore did not violate the Attorney Regulation Act and it would be inappropriate to consider the conduct in violation of the Fair Trade Law. In other words, based on available evidence, it was difficult to conclude that the Taipei Bar Association had violated Article 14 (1) of the Fair Trade Law and the FTC therefore decided not to impose any further sanction on Taipei Bar Association.

Summarized by Tsai,Jing-Hu; Supervised by Liao,Hsien-Chou