licenses, in the first instances, to the courts of the States, Territories, dependencies, possessions, and the District of Columbia." At the same time, however, there has arisen a system in the Federal Government whereby administrative agencies admit to practice before them people who are not licensed lawyers. In this way they do what even the Federal courts have not attempted to do. An anomaly has thereby resulted in which courts, the traditional guardians of the law, recognize one class of practitioners, while administrative agencies often recognize two classes, or do business with all comers regardless of qualifications or requirements. H. R. 2657 does not attempt to abolish that anomaly, nor does the American Bar Association ask that the bill be revised to attempt to do so. The difficulty would probably not be worth the effort. Some of the aggravations may well be alleviated. There is another anomaly which the bill does reach, and which we think needs fundamental attention. I refer to the situation in which, because they are licensed as lawyers, attorneys are subject to various professional and ethical requirements and disabilities. We are so used to them that we rarely think about them, but they exist and they are effective. I might digress at this point by saying that I have a copy of the Canons of Professional Ethics-Canons of Judicial Ethics, adopted by the American Bar Association, which I would like to present to you gentlemen of the committee, and request that it be made a part of the record. Mr. GWYNNE. Very well, it will be made a part of the committee file and be available for reference. Mr. RANDALL. On the other hand, nonlawyer practitioners are not generally subject to those disabilities and requirements. The result is that lawyers are discriminated against in many subtle ways, and some not so subtle. Lawyers may not split fees, solicit business, or do any number of things which are common practices in trade or business. With reference to the solicitation of business, I would like to call your attention to the rules of ethics, if I may digress. Last fall they were still rules of ethics, and I am referring to the accounting profession; and unless they have been recently changed, the rule that I am going to read is still an existing rule. I am referring to their rule 7, which is the only rule, so far as I know, that the accountants have referring to solicitation, or the only prohibition which the accountants have against solicitation. rule 7 reads as follows: Their A member or associate shall not directly, or indirectly, solicit clients, or encroach upon the practice of another public accountant. It is the right of any member, or associate, to give proper service or advice to those asking such service or advice. I merely wish to call that rule to the attention of you gentlemen in connection with the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American PrAssociation, which we have introduce into the record previously. Therefore, if equality is what is sought, either nonlawyers should be made to abide the same standards or the lawyers should be relieved in administrative proceedings from the disabilities otherwise attaching to their status. Obviously, the latter is not possible as to lawyers, nor would it be in the public interest. However, in the view of lawyers generally, the matter of equality, while important, is not the major consideration. The paramount thing is the whole conception of law and government. If special training and rigorous licensing is necessary for the practice of law by lawyers, there must be a reason for it. The reason is that modern government and modern law are intricate things, so that no man should be allowed to hold himself out as a professional unless he shall have met the requirements of the profession. If there is anything to be said about lawyers so far as the public interest is concerned, it is that they are not good enough, not well enough trained, experienced, and disciplined, and not that their status should be watered down directly, or by competition with untrained, inexperienced, undisciplined, and unlicensed practitioners. Moreover, it has often enough been held that the practice of law is a privilege, not a right. To the extent that it is a privilege, it should not only be granted impartially and upon like terms, but it should be only granted to those who meet whatever requirements there are. In short, therefore, the position of the American Bar Association is that standards should be raised, not lowered, and that licenses to practice law or represent people in legal proceedings should be administered equitably, as other licenses in other walks of life are required to be administered. Of course, the working out of any such system, now that we have what amounts to a dual system of practitioners, or in some cases no system, is a matter of considerable difficulty. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cragun, whom I have previously introduced, has worked out a chart with appropriate footnotes which show the present muddled condition with respect to admission to practice before administrative agencies, and I would like to have that made a part of the record. Mr. GWYNNE. Very well; that will be included as a part of the record. (The chart is as follows:) 1 The Department of State in matters before it covers only 2 classes of vol. 3.1). This statement is to be brought to the attention of the Secretary 3A former Government employee is foreclosed from ever representing a |