The maufacturers and chambers of commerce members of the league feel that credentials issued to an agent to practice before an agency should not be revocable other than under the disciplinary proceedings stated in section 7. There is no justifiable reason why, other than in accordance with disciplinary proceedings which now exist under the rules of practice before the Interstate Commerce Commission, certificates to practice granted by such agency to agents to practice before it should be revocable or temporary in their nature.

Section 6 further provides that "On application, individuals subject to this section who have been individually authorized to practice before any agency, have maintained such standing, are actively engaged in practice so permitted, and are so certified by the agency with a specification of the extent to which they have been so qualified to practice and have practiced shall be given credentials enabling them to continue such practice."

For years the Interstate Commerce Commission has certified what is commonly referred to as "class B practitioners" (nonlawyers) who have qualified to practice before the Commission; however, such certifications are not limited to a particular extent of practice. The above provision, therefore, would nullify all certificates heretofore issued by the Commission to such class B practitioners to practice before it. The plain language of the bill apparently would require new applications by such practitioners and the same procedure for their admission to practice as any new applicant who has never practiced before the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Any attempt to specify in the certificate issued to a practitioner the extent to which such practitioner may practice before the Commission would only result in confusion.

I wish to endorse all that has been said to this committee by Mr. R. A. Ellison of Cincinnati, Ohio, as to the destruction of educational programs which are now being carried on, are designed to develop the highest type of technically trained personnel for admission to practice before the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is not by legislation but only by the specialized education of students in this subject that the highest development of trained personnel may be accomplished. I want to direct the committee's attention to one further situation and that is the fact that any lawyer, no matter how inexperienced or unqualified to handle a particular proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission, would be authorized under section 5 of the bill to practice before the Interstate Commerce Commission provided the requirements of said section exist and/or are carried out. No justification exists for restrictions on those which the Interstate Commerce Commission have or may in the future find to be qualified to practice before it. It would be far more logical that examinations, for both lawyers and nonlawyers, be the basis for such admission.

In conclusion and as hereinbefore stated there is no public necessity requiring the enactment of this bill and we oppose it; however, we have no objection to the enactment of a bill setting up a Credentials Committee who would be authorized, subject to proper safeguards, to issue certificates to lawyers to practice before any of the governmental agencies without the necessity of securing such certificates direct from each of such agencies if such is deemed to be in the public interest.

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTHERN TRAFFIC LEAGUE

To the House Judiciary Committee:

This statement is presented in opposition to H. R. 2657, on behalf of the membership of the Southern Traffic League at the direction of the board of governors of the league.

The Southern Traffic League is an incoroprated nonprofit organization of southern shippers and receivers of freight. The membership of the league includes many manufacturers and civic and trade organizations located in the South. With but few exceptions, the individual members of the league representing their employers, are members of the bar of the Interstate Commerce Commission. These include both class A, lawyer, and class B, nonlawyer practitioners. The majority of these men have had many years of practice and experience before the Interstate Commerce Commission and other quasi judicial agencies of the United States Government to the complete satisfaction of their employers and the agencies before which they have appeared.

73117-48-ser. 15- 28

The membership of the league is of the opinion that the bill under consideration is a definite step toward the limiting of practice before the Interstate Commerce Commission and other similar agencies, to accredited lawyers.

The league feels that such legislation not only is objectionable but is unnecessary and undesirable for the following reasons:

1. Since its formation in 1887 the ICC has permitted both lawyers and nonlawyers to appear before it in formal proceedings and in the handling of informal matters.

2. The membership of the Southern Traffic League are not cognizant of any complaints or criticism of the professional and technical knowledge of the nonlawyer practitioners, that would justify in whole or in part, their exclusion from such practice.

To the contrary, their ability and usefulness is admitted by everyone familiar with ICC matters. Many lawyers, probably the majority, do not have the technical knowledge possessed by nonlawyer practitioners, and this is a natural result of the specialization of the nonlawyer practitioners.

3. By reason of the breadth of their technical knowledge, nonlawyer practitioners aid and expedite the trial of cases before the Interstate Commerce Commission. Exclusion, in their case, would result in more expensive, slower litigation to the detriment of the interested parties and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

4. Many firms, large and small, maintain traffic departments headed by men experienced in all phases of transportation. Ordinarily, these men are not lawyers. These men, as a part of their duties, handle many matters before the Interstate Commerce Commission for their employers. We believe this bill would preclude, or at least jeopardize, future performance of such duties. Many of these men have spent years dealing with transportation matters for a particular industry. Their accumulated technical and economic knowledge would be lost under the terms of the bill now before the committee.

5. The bill, if enacted into law, would not add to the prestige or ability of the ICC's bar, but rather would detract from the present efficiency and knowledge of that bar. Additionally, the ICC would be deprived of the knowledge and experience of these technically trained nonlawyers.

6. The ICC for many years has had authority and has prescribed standards of admission to its bar, and standards of ethics and governing practice before it. Additionally, nonlawyers are required to undergo and satisfactorily pass a comprehensive written examination before being admitted to practice.

It is respectfully submitted that the Interstate Commerce Commission and similar agencies are best qualified by experience and knowledge to establish educational standards and technical knowledge requisite to admission to practice. The proposed legislation would not, in any manner, improve the professional standing or knowledge of the ICC's bar, but would arbitrarily limit and circumscribe the usefulness of hundreds of men without justification. The bill definitely is not in the public interest and should not pass.

Respectfully,

H. F. GILLIS, Executive Secretary.

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS, INC., IN REFERENCE TO THE PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTITIONERS ACT, AS SET FORTH IN H. R. 2657

To the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.:

This statement is respectfully submitted for your consideration on behalf of the National Association of Magazine Publishers, Inc., in opposition to certain provisions of the proposed act to be known as the "Administrative Practitioners Act," as contained in the bill (H. R. 2657) introduced on March 20, 1947, by Representative John W. Gwynne of Iowa at the first session of the Eightieth Congress. The provisions of the proposed act referred to impose upon agents who may be admitted to practice before governmental agencies, who are not lawyers, the same standards of professional conduct, including limitations on advertising, as are required of members of the legal profession.

The National Association of Magazine Publishers, Inc. is a trade organization made up of publishers of nationally distributed magazines and periodicals of all kinds and descriptions. The organization goes back to the year 1919.

It carries on trade association activities of various kinds for and on behalf of magazines and periodicals. Magazines and periodicals, of course, are one of the principal media in this country for the dissemination of information to the reading public. Included in the great variety of information supplied by magazines and periodicals is the information transmitted by the advertisements which most of such publications carry.

The National Association of Magazine Publishers, Inc., by reason of experience which it has had with the Patent Office with respect to advertising by nonmembers of the legal profession who practice before that office, feels that it is in a position to express a point of view on phases of the proposed legislation which should be presented to this committee for its consideration.

The provisions of the pending bill for an Administrative Practitioners Act (H. R. 2657) with which this statement is particularly concerned are to be found in section 4, at lines 20 to 25, inclusive, on page 3, and line 1 on page 4. These lines read as follows:

"Practice as attorneys subject to section 5 shall be governed by the standards of professional conduct generally applicable to members of the bar of courts. Agents admitted to practice pursuant to section 6 shall be subject to the same requirements, including limitations on solicitation and advertising, which shall be adapted and promulgated in the form of rules by the Credentials Committee." These provisions appear to require of agents who are not members of the legal profession the same standards of professional conduct as are generally applicable to members of the legal profession. These provisions expressly include limitations on advertising, so as to impose on nonlawyers the same close restrictions in the matter of advertising as are applied to attorneys at law. It is the position of the association that, upon analysis, the standards with respect to advertising proposed for practising agents who are not attorneys at law go far beyond the requirements of the public interest and, in so doing, are contrary to it and that, in any event, they are wholly unnecessary and inadvisable.

I. The limitations on advertising go far beyond the requirements of the public interest and, in so doing, are contrary to it

The stated objective of the bill (H. R. 2657) is to protect the public with respect to practitioners before administrative agencies. So far as limitations on advertising are involved, it is, of course, in the public interest to protect against false and misleading advertising. The National Association of Magazine Publishers, Inc. and the magazine publishers which it represents are definitely opposed, in their own interest as well as the interest of the public, to false and misleading advertising and, as will be more fully stated later herein, affirmative steps have been taken to prevent this kind of advertising.

if this was all that the association felt was involved in the limitations on advertising contained in the bill, this statement would not have been prepared and submitted. However, the restrictions contained in the bill are not confined to such matters. They go farther in the matter of advertising and confine nonlawyers within the close restrictions imposed upon attorneys at law. So far as the association is aware no actual need exists for the narrow restrictions proposed. On the other hand, the ultimate effect will be at once to take away from nonlawyers their existing opportunity to present their services in legitimate fashion to the public, which has long been their right and, also, to take away from the public its opportunity to learn of the availability of the services of technicians in specialized fields.

There would seem to be no doubt that barring various classes of experts admitted to practice before governmental agencies from publicly offering their services would be prejudicial to the public. The reason the governmental agencies admit these experts to practice is because the agencies believe that the type of factual presentation required can be well done by a particular type of expert. They admit qualified men to practice before them. In the Patent Office, for instance, a great body of practitioners have been admitted to practice because of their knowledge of mechanical facts and their helpfulness to inventors. These men serve a useful purpose in promoting the general encouragement of invention throughout the land, which is the objective of the patent laws. That is the reason the Patent Office admits them to practice before it. The association believes that the public should have an opportunity through ordinary channels of advertising to know who these men are and what they do. To impose upon them the rigid yardsticks which the legal profession properly adopts for its own members would seem to be affirmatively against the public interest.

II. Other ways of protecting the public against advertising abuses

It is quite unnecessary to confine nonlawyer practitioners before governmental agencies to the advertising standards, which have been set up for the legal profession, in order to protect the public against abuses in advertising. Such problems as have been raised by advertising on the part of lay practitioners before governmental agencies are already being taken care of in more than

one way.

Various administrative agencies such as the Treasury Department and the Patent Office, of course, already have rules or regulations designed to meet the particular advertising problems which are of concern to them.

Also, the American Institute of Accountants, for example, imposes certain restrictions on advertising in its Rules of Professional Conduct.

The magazine industry itself is already effectively dealing with undesirable advertising in ways which cover the problems of concern to governmental agencies.

The great bulk of advertising by practitioners before governmental agencies, who are nonlawyers, is carried in magazines and periodicals. The magazine industry has in existence an effective committee known as the Magazine Advertising Copy Service Committee, which sets advertising standards which are carefully observed by the great bulk of publications. The purpose and result of the operations of this committee is the general prevention of false, misleading and other objectionable advertising in magazines and periodicals circulating in this country.

The National Association of Magazine Publishers, Inc., also functions in this field with reference to particular problems which have arisen in connection with advertising by nonlawyer practictioners before governmental agencies. At the present time the association is engaged in conversations with representatives of the Patent Office in reference to restrictive rules relating to advertising proposed to be promulgated by that office, and it is believed that regulations will be worked out which will eliminate known abuses without unreasonably restricting legitimate advertising. The association is in a position to bring about the elimination of any objectionable advertising practices which the Patent Office has discovered or which that or any other governmental agency may discover, and the association is anxious in the interests of magazine advertising which, it submits, is also in the public interest, to make its services available in this connection.

There is thus no need or urgency narrowly to restrict advertising on the part of nonlawyer practitioners before governmental agencies. The matter of protecting the public with respect to undesirable advertising can quite safely be left with the administrative agencies, which have primary knowledge of the problems to be met in their particular fields, to the associations of practitioners, which are able to impose restrictions on their members in their own interests, and to the magazine industry itself, which obviously has a great deal at stake and has taken adequate means to safeguard it.

III. The inadvisability of the proposed restrictions on advertising

The National Association of Magazine Publishers, Inc., desires to submit for the serious consideration of the Committee on the Judiciary that the narrow limitations proposed to be placed on nonlawyer practitioners by H. R. 2657, particularly with respect to advertising, are not only unnecessary but seem definitely inadvisable.

It is, of course, fundamental that the constitutional guaranty of a free press applies to the advertising as well as to the editorial columns of a newspaper or magazine and that the right of any member of the public to deliver a printed message in "paid" space is just as sacrosanct as the right of an editor to express himself in an editorial, so long as the message is not libelous, obscene, fraudulent, or misleading.

The proposed bill sets up an entirely new governmental body to be known as a Credentials Committee and provides, in connection with the imposition upon nonlawyers admitted to practice before governmental agencies of requirements of professional conduct applicable to lawyers, that such standards shall be adapted and promulgated in the form of rules by the Credentials Committee. It is respectfully submitted that this provision, as it involves restrictions on advertising, will have the effect of setting up a form of governmental censorship which would be an infringement of the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and the press.

The National Association of Magazine Publishers, Inc., recognizes that bar associations and associations of other professional persons have or may set up standards of conduct for their members which involve restrictions on advertising which they deem advisable, and this association is not to be understood as challenging their right so to do. This is a part of the self-regulatory processes which are well established in our American system and, indeed, supplement the policing of advertising by the magazine industry itself, which render the proposed legislative restrictions unnecessary, as pointed out hereinabove.

It is quite a different thing, however, for a centralized governmental agency not connected with practical everyday administrative problems to be empowered to make rules purporting to adapt and promulgate standards of professional conduct. There is altogether too much danger that under such power the governmental agency would itself undertake not merely to codify but affirmatively to establish standards of conduct to suit its own ideas of the proprieties. Such a provision can only result in a form of governmental censorship and a delegation of power entirely foreign to American governmental principles.

In conclusion, it is respectfully submitted that the public interest will be far better served to leave the matter of advertising on the part of the nonlawyer practitioners before governmental agencies to be worked out by the traditional processes of self-regulation by professional associations and the publishing industry, which are fully informed and able to deal with advertising standards in general and to cooperate with individual governmental agencies as to types of advertising which do not meet well-recognized standards in specific instances. The association therefore requests that the provisions of the bill No. H. R. 2657 be revised so that, notwithstanding any other standards of professional conduct which may be imposed upon nonlawyers admitted to practice before the governmental agencies, they will not be restricted in the matter of advertising as are members of the legal profession and will be able to continue as in the past to advertise in every proper way.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the National Association of Magazine Publishers, Inc.

DEAR SIR: I would like to register my opposition to the Gwynne bill No. H. R. 2657 which would prohibit appearance before governmental agencies on the part of all except attorneys.

Our company is particularly interested in cases which concern the Interstate Commerce Commission. Our traffic manager, Mr. H. S. McCafferty, for years has had a certificate permitting his appearance before the Interstate Commerce Commission in cases which affect the Federal Glass Co, and the American Glassware Association. Mr. McCafferty is thoroughly versed in traffic matters pertaining to this company and to our industry; he has periodically passed rigid examinations prior to receiving his certificate. Should this bill pass, our company would be saddled with needless additional legal expense involving a great waste of time as well.

We know of no legal firm in this vicinity qualified to handle the complicated detailed matters involved in appearances before the Interstate Commerce Commission,

"Feather bedding" should not be permitted to creep into situations of this kind any more than in matters involving labor.

May I ask your opposition to this bill when it reaches your committee?

Sincerely yours,

E. A. DONNAN.