Development by bar associations of guidelines for determining professional fees

Practice described as anti-competitive

Abstract

The Supreme Court has recently ruled to uphold the Spanish authority of competence’s Resolutions in which several Bar Associations were sanctioned for infringing antitrust rules by adopting guidance criteria in relation only, apparently, to the assessment of costs and the swearing in of accounts. The Supreme Court considers that, although the Fourth Additional Provision of the Law on Professional Associations allows guidance criteria to be drawn up for these matters of the assessment of costs and the swearing in of accounts, this is an exceptional possibility that must be interpreted strictly. In this sense, it understands that, in no case, do the criteria drawn up by the Bar Associations correspond to the definition to be given to those permitted by this Fourth Additional Provision. Furthermore, he adds, the criteria of the Bar Associations, in many cases, are also applied to other services provided by professionals and are not, therefore, limited to these two situations in which they would be permitted.

In other judgements, the Supreme Court ruled on the competence of the Spanish authority of competence
to sanction the Bar Associations, taking into account that, as the appellants say, the conduct in question is confined to a territory and the competent authority should be that of the territory in question affected by the conduct. In these cases, the Supreme Court upheld the Spanish authority of competence’s jurisdiction due to the supra-autonomous repercussions of the conduct.