No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
“In the large city of today, there are thousands of lawyers, but there is no bar.” With this remark, Roscoe Pound five years ago called attention to the situation which had resulted in the United States from the absence of a corporate profession equipped to administer discipline and govern itself. The presence in all communities of lawyers whose character or equipment rendered them unfit to practice had brought the entire profession into disrepute and had contributed largely to the encroachment of banks, trust companies, and other lay agencies upon the legal field.
1 “The Crisis in American Law,” Harper's Magazine, January, 1926Google Scholar, reprinted in 10 Journal of the American Judicature Society, 5.
2 For a recent discussion, see Hicks, Frederick C. and Katz, Elliott R., “The Practice of Law by Laymen and Lay Agencies,” 41 Yale Law Journal, 69 (November, 1931)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 The American Commonwealth (N.Y., 1911), Vol. II, p. 669Google Scholar.
4 In Canada, the distinction between barristers and solicitors is no longer of particular significance; most lawyers belong to both classes and engage in the general practice of the law. Calling in special trial counsel is no more common than in the United States.
5 The Law Society also maintains the law school at Osgoode Hall for training prospective members of the bar and appoints the principal, the lecturer, and the examiners.
6 Editorial, “An American Bar in the Making,” 10 Jour. Am. Jud. Soc., 103Google Scholar. Also Harley, Herbert, “Ontario Courts and Procedure,” 12 Mich. Law Rev., 447CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 In addition to the law societies, which are concerned solely with matters of a legal and business nature, there exist exclusive and voluntary bar associations, modeled after those in our states, to conduct general meetings and promote social relations.
8 Warren, Charles, A History of the American Bar, p. 200 (N.Y., 1913)Google Scholar.
9 Ibid., p. 196.
10 Ibid., p. 200.
11 Ibid., p. 196.
12 Reed, Alfred Z., Training for the Public Profession of the Law, p. 37 (Bulletin 15 of the Carnegie Foundation, 1921)Google Scholar.
13 Ibid., p. 28.
14 Address delivered before the annual meeting of the New York State Bar Association, January 20, 1922, New York City, printed in 5 Jour. Am. Jud. Soc., 181.
15 Reed, Alfred Z., Training for the Public Profession of the Law, p. 206Google Scholar.
16 Am. Bar Assoc. Jour. (October, 1915), p. 566Google Scholar.
17 Published in 2 Jour. Am. Jud. Soc., 111.
18 Ibid., p. 83.
19 Partially reported in 10 Jour. Am. Jud. Soc., 13.
20 The controversy in New York gave rise to a series of articles in the New York Law Review. Cohen, Julius Henry set forth the advantages of an all-inclusive bar in “The National Call for the Organization of the Bar,” 4 New York Law Review, 81 (March, 1926)Google Scholar and 135 (April, 1926). William D. Guthrie set forth the disadvantages in “The Proposed Compulsory Incorporation of the Bar,” ibid., 179 (March, 1926), and 223 (April, 1926).
21 Jackson v. Gallet, 39 Idaho 382, 228 Pac. 1068.
22 The constitutionality of the amended act was sustained in the case In re Edwards, 45 Idaho 676, 266 Pac. 665.
23 The draft act approved by the South Dakota State Bar Association, and submitted to the legislature, closely resembled the California law, but it met with such strenuous opposition in the legislature that during the closing hours of the session there was introduced and passed a substitute measure similar to the skeleton organization law of North Dakota.
24 Bryaonjack v. State Bar, 208 Cal. 439, 281 Pac. 1018.
25 In re Shattuck, 208 Cal. 6, 279 Pac. 998.
26 In re Scott, 292 Pac. 291.
27 In re Royall, 33 N.M. 386, 268 Pac. 570.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.