Here again the Clarke reply was definite and complete, adding these items:

"Name stricken from roll on consent, 6"; " Proceedings dismissed 5"; "Still pending 17."

In several states attorneys under charges have found it convenient to depart this life or the jurisdiction.

Kentucky reports charges dismissed for lack of proof almost universally.

Kansas reports that accused "promised to leave state if Boar of Examiners would not disbar; however, it has been learned that he has merely removed to Wichita and is practicing there"!

Your committee comments on this as typical of the prevalent laissez faire practice. It seems to be nobody's business to follow up and carry on the sanitation business. Such a bargain as the above reported is highly reprehensible and should be condemned by the bar generally.

In another state the proceedings were discontinued because "matter was adjusted between attorney and client," a dangerous rule for the courts to follow.

Another judge, elsewhere, reports "vindication by pardon in two cases upon application of offender"!

Another answers six "taken care of privately by judge”!

It would seem that canons of judicial ethics are still needed.

THE SEVENTH QUESTION WAS:

In what specific manner is your local bar active in the effort to keep the profession up to high standards?

a. Has it a Committee of Grievances?

b. Has that committee a paid attorney?

Outside of New York the answer to b is No. Boards of Censors or Committees of Grievances are very generally reported, though "very inactive" in some states. The "guild" spirit, of standing by a fellow lawyer seems to be prevalent. We feel warranted in saying that it is by no means the general rule that these grievance committees or boards feel that "sanitation" is up to them--they are slow to wrath, and have to be generously poked up before acting.

THE EIGHTH QUESTION WAS:

How many complaints come to you directly from laymen aggrieved by lawyers' alleged misconduct?

Here the replies are of a little value. The Clarke reply, however, is "The settled policy of this court is not to entertain complaints directly from clients. The court requires preliminary investigation by the Grievance Committee of the association of the bar, or of the County Lawyers' Association, or of the district attorney. If, upon such investigation it is decided that the complaints are well founded, charges are formulated which are then passed upon by the court. If the facts are disputed, a reference is ordered."

These references are usually to "Official Referees," ie., judges who have passed the age limit, and are on a pension conditioned on the rendering of such and similar services.

THE NINTH QUESTION:

This question called for a list of the cases and citations “in your courts on discipline of lawyers."

NOTE.-A list of cases and citations contained in the printed report can be obtained upon application to the Secretary of the Association.

QUESTION TEN READS:

Does the law of your state contain provisions governing:

a. Admission to practice as an attorney?

b. Discipline of attorneys?

c. Duties of any public officer (such as district attorney) in discipline cases?

d. If not, has your court promulgated rules governing such cases?

The answers to this question came from thirty-five states.

Vermont sent only three replies-to a and b one judge answered yes and another no. The third kept the balance even by not answering either. None of the three answered c and d.

From Montana it is reported that bar association is “moribund" and that legislature has "persistently refused to recognize it or to clothe it with any authority.

In Maine there exist apparently adequate statutes but they do "not annul or restrict any authority hitherto possessed or exercised by the courts over attorneys." We commend this attitude of the court.

From Georgia it is answered that §4965 (R. S. ch. 84, §42) of the code itself, provides a high code of ethics. "Most of the bar are above the average." "Public opinion is a powerful factor in Georgia and soon freezes out undesirables."

A judge in Kentucky stoutly asserts that "an unethical attorney in my district is in the class of extinct animals and birds." (Why the conjunctive?)

We believe after analyzing the returns to this question that while there are statutes governing the discipline of attorneys in most of the states replying, the courts should none the less assert and defend their inherent powers, irrespective of statute, to purge the rolls.

The contrary view, i. e., that the power to discipline results from statutes making attorneys "officers of the court," is ably presented in a paper read to the New York State Bar Association in 1913. See Vol. XXXVI of Reports, 467, at p. 477 et seq. Subject: Disbarment in New York.

The Maine act recognizes this power explicitly but it would seem to exist independently of such recognition.

If the state bar associations, when they have adopted canons, would present copies thereof, not only to each applicant for admission to the Bar, but also to each judge upon his taking office, it could be made the occasion for giving proper publicity to the existence of such canons, and the judge himself could place himself on record in relation thereto.

No matter how pure the local bar, occasional reminders of these voluntary restrictions would add to the popular respect for the profession, including the Bench.

THE ELEVENTH QUESTION:

This question was one from which the committee expected great results. It reads:

"11. Have you any suggestion to offer as to how the Bench and Bar can more efficiently cooperate to keep our professional standards on a high ethical plane?"

NOTE. This question is intended to cover cases where the conduct and behavior of attorneys under circumstances of which the court is alone aware, may not amount to a breach of one of the Canons of Professional Ethics, but, nevertheless, may call for action on the part of the Bar or of the Bench, because it tends to lower the essential dignity of the profession.

We have quoted above the reply of that judge who places the seat of ethics in the abdominal region, thus doubtless locating the "reins," as to the rightness of which the psalmist David often expressed anxiety.

There are suggestions made, however, which are practical.

The committees on character that search the qualifications of applicants for admission to the Bar so effectively, of recent years, in the metropolitan counties of New York, have been repeatedly commended in the reports to the N. Y. State Bar Association.

The lack of such tests in many other districts is doubtless the cause of many unworthy men slipping through the gates into the profession.

A New Jersey judge suggests that no less searching an inquiry be made as to a prospective lawyer than would be applied if he sought admission to a select club of gentlemen.

An Ohio judge: "It seems rather a question of restoring standards, than of keeping them," and he comments on the few lawyers who attend bar association meetings or are interested in such activities.

A Pennsylvania judge urges more study of legal ethics in the schools of law. Another "the cultivation of more sensitive individual conscience." Another "Encourage fraternity and good fellowship, ostracize those who practise questionable methods; exercise influence against excessive contingent fees and other debasing innovations."

On the other hand many replies emphasize the point that too much fraternity and good fellowship results in mutual accommodations in the "law's delays," and a guild feeling of shielding a fellow lawyer under fire.

A New York judge urges more frequent meetings of local bar associations and a report by the grievance .committee at every meeting. Another remarks "By making our own conduct. exemplary." A capital answer.

A presiding justice of one of the judicial departments comments on the evil of employing "runners" in other adjoining states and bringing in accident victims to New York, simulating a residence and suing there for damages.

The Clarke answer refers to No. 8, i. e., constant and systematic cooperation with local grievance committees, and un

swerving prosecution of all complaints endorsed by their members after careful scrutiny.

It will be recalled that such committees so referred to have salaried counsel and their work is characterized by vigilance and conscientious thoroughness. So much so that one cause of complaint is the coercion of another attorney pendente lite by threat of complaint to the Bogey Man-the grievance committee.

From Alabama comes the suggestion that bar associations be incorporated" with teeth." (A Minerva-like genesis, full panoplied with offensive and defensive weapons.)

Arizona calls for less "squeamish" grievance committees. Arkansas recommends, inter alia, "more effective work by the church and Sunday schools and fewer fraternal orders!"

From Colorado comes the suggestion to eliminate contingent fees and commissions on law business.

A Georgia judge confines himself to saying he "could write a book" on this topic.

Illinois suggests an oath of office emphasizing ethical conductand sharp discipline on "first offense." This is a keen suggestion. Mere censure or warning seems to many of the judges a sufficient deterrent, as we gather from the replies to question 6.

From Iowa comes the suggestion that the members of the grievance committees should themselves be ethical and beyond reproach. "Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone."

An Indiana jurist's solution is that attorneys should refrain from indulging in or encouraging disparaging remarks about others of their profession."

From Kansas, in two widely separated localities the answer is that there be more local associations, frequent discussion of ethics, and the propriety of enforced membership in the association of every lawyer, so as to give control of his conduct.

From Michigan we have the reply that this problem is solvable by rigid application of existing standards "instead of eternally excusing and overlooking infractions of ethics."

Minnesota urges that legislative authority be given to bar associations in the matter of all discipline.