本研究認為律師等專門職業內部的管制行為倘不具有排除競爭法適用的正當理由，行為又已對市場競爭產生戕害效果時，自須由競爭法主管機關介入加以導正。 Professional practice (especially the lawyers) has traditionally distinguished itself for being subject to strong regulation, characterized by containing severe restrictions on competition between professionals. This article observed that the self-regulation will make the problem worse . Because many of Bar’s activities could be viewed as anticompetitive, they may be adopt some regulation in order to protect members or industrial profits, neither public interest nor social welfare. In US and EU, the professions are in a new era with respect to their relationship with the competition law. They conclusively determined that competition law applies to the ‘professionals”, unless the activitie is in furtherance of a clearly articulated state policy and actively supervised by the state.
Thus, in determine that the self-regulation can be exempt from competition law or not. It should be consider whether the government authorized the conduct at issue, and find the justifications for those regulations. For example, they must be (1) in the pursuit of public interest objective (2) necessary to achieve that objective and (3) the effects restrictive of competition must not go beyond what is necessary in order to ensure the proper practice of the profession.
In sum, granting antitrust immunity must be limited only when the activities are valid and justified. If the self-regulation goes too far and unnecessarily restricts competition in the market, the Fair Trade Act shoule be applied to it.