California ruling says a Trade Association's rules can function as legal standard.

[Nick Gromicko]

http://www.lw.com/resource/Publicati.../pub1577_1.pdf

[Joseph T. Burkeson, CMI]

Prior to Stevenson, California business competitors were free – at least in the eyes of tort law – to use any lawful means to vie for customers and clients not already contractually bound. But in the post-Stevenson world, such competitors must pay particular attention to whether the established rules or standards of their trade associations provide for “internal remedies” – and whether their conduct could be perceived as violating those rules or standards.

Thus, in evaluating how aggressively to compete for business, every member of a trade association wishing to avoid tort liability would do well to either (1) scrupulously hew to the rules of the association, or (2) consider withdrawing from the association altogether; nothing in Stevenson suggests that liability might follow from a violation of trade rules to which a defendant has not agreed to be bound. Until the California Supreme Court revisits the issue, competitors that do otherwise may find themselves determining through costly litigation whether their conduct ran afoul of Stevenson.

It appears that in the eyes of the California court that associations have the power to finely regulate how its members can ethically compete within the marketplace. Hopefully that kind of thinking will trickle down in regards to licensing legislation and allow us to self-regulate our profession using the government only as a last-ditch arbiter of professional ethics in breaches of criminal code.