In section 6 the provision appears that nonlawyers may be permitted before an agency only where the governing statute does not provide only for appearances in person or by attorney or counsel. Now, as the word "attorney" is used there, is that meant to include only an attorney at law?

Mr. RANDALL. I believe that is true, Mr. Case. In other words, if you refer back to the Administrative Procedure Act, I believe that was the definition that was used.

Mr. CASE. So that would change the situation in respect of appearances before the Interstate Commerce Commission under that act which provides that appearances may be made in person or by an attorney, under which statute attorneys in fact as well as attorneys in law are permitted to appear.

Mr. RANDALL. I believe that is true.

Mr. CASE. Did you have any particular set-up in mind?

Mr. RANDALL. I do not believe there was any particular set-up that we have in mind.

Mr. CASE. Just to apply broadly and limited to attorneys at law? Mr. RANDALL. That is true.

Mr. GWYNNE. Mr. Randall, the committee appreciates your appearance and your very comprehensive statement setting out the position of the American Bar Association on this bill.

I might say for the benefit of the witnesses who are present we are very pleased to note that representatives of other great groups have signified their intention to appear, and we certainly invite them to do so and express their views and suggest amendments in the most detailed fashion. The interest of this committee rises from the situation that exists with regard to the Administrative Procedure Act. Now, it is not correct, as has been said in many quarters, that the failure of the Administrative Procedure act to cover this phase was an indication that this committee, at least, meant that nothing should be done. The history of it, of course, is this: The Administrative Procedures Act was passed late in the session. We had considerable difficulty with its various provisions, and the entire subject of practice was, by agreement, left to be handled by the subsequent Congress when there would be more time to do it, and that is what this committee is anxious to do now; nothing else.

I regret to say that the House is meeting early today. I think that we will have up some matters in which our committee is interested and we will not be able to continue further. Our own full committee has a special meeting Monday and a regular meeting Tuesday. The situation is so confused over there that it will not be possible for us to fix a date to continue the hearings until we sort of work out of this jam in which we presently find ourselves. However, opportunity will be given for every person to appear.

Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to call attention of the committee to the fact that the Iowa State Bar Association, of which the chairman is a distinguished member, had its recent meeting and passed a resolution of approval of this bill, and I would like to have that resolution in the record, if the chairman will permit. Mr. GWYNNE. Very well. That may be included. (The resolution referred to is as follows:)

RESOLUTION

Whereas a bill sponsored by the American Bar Association, to regulate appearances before Federal administrative agencies has been introduced in the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, as House Resolution 2657 by Mr. Gwynne, of Iowa, and which if enacted is to be cited as the "Administrative Practitioner's Act"; and

Whereas this bill, supplementary to the Administrative Procedure Act, is designed to protect the public with respect to practitioners before Federal administrative agencies by setting up standards of conduct for such practitioners, providing for a simplified and uniform system of credentials for qualified lawyers and regulating and restricting practice before Federal agencies by nonlawyers; and

Whereas this association believes legislation of this character is essential for the protection of lawyers as well as the public: Therefore be it

Resolved by the members of the Iowa State Bar Association, That this association does hereby endorse in principle the proposed Administrative Practitioner's Act now pending in the Congress of the United States as House Resolution 2657. Mr. RANDALL. I would further like to read a communication of former Justice Owen Roberts, who is now president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, which was sent to me under date of July 7, 1947. It is very short, and if I may be permitted to read it, I will appreciate it. Mr. GWYNNE. Yes.

Mr. RANDALL (reading):

DEAR MR. RANDALL: At a meeting of the Pennsylvania Bar Association held here July 2, 1947, upon the report of the committee on administrative law, the association unanimously adopted a resolution endorsing and urging the passage of the Administrative Practitioners Act now pending in the Congress, and authorized me as president of the association to appear before the committee now considering the bill.

I find that I shall be unable to attend the hearings scheduled for Friday, July 11, and am therefore requesting you, as representative of the American Bar Association, to communicate to the committee the action taken.

Sincerely yours,

OWEN J. ROBERTS,

President of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Mr. GWYNNE. Thank you very much. Mr. RANDALL. I might likewise suggest to the committee that a similar resolution to the resolution passed by the Iowa State Bar Association was passed by the Louisiana State Bar Association, and I believe the chairman has received a communication from the Chicago Bar Association. I have a copy. It is under date of July 7, 1947. Mr. GWYNNE. I have been requested to insert it in the record. If you have it and would like to put it in the record, it will be inserted. Mr. RANDALL. I have a copy, and I would like to put it in the record at this point.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. JOHN W. GWYNNE,

THE CHICAGO BAR ASSOCIATION,
Chicago 3, Ill., July 7, 1947.

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 2, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. GWYNNE: With reference to H. R. 2657 (the administrative practitioners bill), I wish to advise you that the Chicago Bar Association, acting through its board of managers, has approved this bill-as introduced on March 20, 1947-as a progressive step toward improving the conditions which have heretofore existed with reference to practitioners before administrative agencies.

H. R. 2657, which provides for regulation of practitioners (both lawyers and nonlawyers) before Federal administartive agencies, is of great importance

to the public and to the legal profession in providing for the first time comprehensive regulation of all practitioners before Federal agencies. The lack of such general regulation up to the present time particularly in hearings in which the record is final subject only to judicial review, has created undesirable conditions. The proposed act is a worth-while supplement to the Administrative Procedure Act and will fill a vital need in raising the standards of practice before Federal administrative agencies.

The Chicago Bar Association is greatly interested in the elimination of unauthorized practice of law before administrative agencies as well as in the courts. Today a great number of the acts performed by persons representing others in proceedings before Federal administrative agencies constitute the practice of law. Today, many of the practitioners before those agencies are not lawyers. As has been wisely provided in H. R. 2657, the practice in agency proceedings conducted pursuant to sections 7 or 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act, is generally confined to attorneys at law. There, however, are exceptions, namely, that: (1) A partner may appear in behalf of his partnership; (2) Federal, State, and local governments can be represented by nonlawyers; and (3) practitioners who are not lawyers may continue to practice. Moreover, under H. R. 2657, nonlawyers may be given credentials to practice in agency proceedings not conducted pursuant to sections 7 or 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and, if permitted by agency rule, an officer of a corporation or other organization may represent his organization in such proceedings, without enrollment either as an attorney or an agent. We regard as the practice of law many acts which would be performed by nonlawyers even in proceedings not under sections 7 or 8 or aforesaid.

Although the bill is not completely adequate from our standpoint, nevertheless, the board of managers of the Chicago Bar Association approved H. R. 2657 as a step forward in improving existing conditions.

We would be glad to have you incorporate this letter in the record of the proceedings by your committee on H. R. 2657 as a statement of our views.

Very truly yours,

ERWIN W. ROEMER, President.

Mr. RANDALL. I would also like to read into the record a resolution passed by the unauthorized practice of law committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association on April 22, 1947:

On motion duly made and seconded and unanimously carried, it is Resolved, that H. R. 2657, introduced in the House of Representatives on March 20, 1946, and relating to practice before administrative agencies, be and the same is approved.

This concludes my presentation on behalf of the American Bar Association, and I want to thank you for your kind permission for me to appear and for the association to be heard.

In concluding this statement, I wish to ask only that should some matter arise which had not been covered in the statement we be permitted to submit an additional statement for the record. While I may not be here for subsequent hearings, Mr. Ford, a member of the Washington, D. C., bar and a member of the responsible committee of the American Bar Association, will be available.

Mr. GWNNE. Thank you very much.

We will not be able to proceed any further. If any witness is present who simply wishes to file a statement, but does not care to come back, he may bring it forward now; otherwise, the committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11 o'clock the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

PRACTICE BEFORE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1948

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 2,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. John W. Gwynne presiding.

Mr. GWYNNE. I think we might as well proceed.

I might say before we begin that during the regular session last year we had one witness who appeared in behalf of the American Bar Association and at some length explained the views of that organization and suggested certain amendments.

Now, today, we are very glad to have with us representatives of another great group, the accountants of the country, and we will be glad to hear them and hear any suggestions or amendments they would like to propose.

The first witness will be Mr. Spencer Gordon.

STATEMENT OF SPENCER GORDON, COUNSEL, AMERICAN
INSTITUTE OF ACCOUNTANTS

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Spencer Gordon; I am a lawyer in Washington, with an office in the Union Trust Building. I am not an accountant. Our firm has

been counsel for the American Institute of Accountants for more than 25 years, and I have been doing their work all that time, first as an assistant to Judge Covington, and, later on, when I got older, I have been doing it myself.

I have with me Mr. George Bailey. Mr. Bailey, will you stand just a moment? He is the president of the American Institute of Accountants. And this is Mr. John L. Carey, who is the secretary.

I think I can tell the story of the bill pretty well, but if anyone asks any question which has to do with the organization of the institute or any accounting matter, I will refer it to these gentlemen.

Mr. Chairman, as we see this bill, it has two totally distinct functions. One function of the bill is to create a list of lawyers who may practice before all Government agencies. The accountants have no objection whatever to that part of the bill, and I assume that that part of the bill would serve a useful function.

Sometimes a lawyer will come to Washington and find that he has to go before an agency to which he has not been admitted to practice, whereas if he could get himself admitted to practice before all agencies

he would not ever have to worry about that. That part of the bill we have no objection to at all.

We do, however, oppose the part of the bill which regulates the practice of nonlawyers before Government agencies, and our position as to that is that the law in the future should be as it is now and as it has been in the past, that each agency should make its own rules for the admission of people to practice before it.

Let me say just a word about what these accountants are that we represent and what their interest in this matter is.

A certified public accountant is this: Each one of the States and the District of Columbia has a certified public accountancy law. It has a board, and this board gives examinations annually. People pass the examinations and become certified public accountants. The examinations are in auditing and accounting and commercial law, and they are something like bar examinations, only perhaps they are a little

bit harder.

At any rate, they require a good many years' experience before a man can take them, which is different from a bar examination that a man takes right out of law school.

The men who pass those examinations are certified public accountants. There are about 30,000 of them in the United States, and there are about 10,000 of them in this American Institute of Accountants, which I represent. It is the only national organization of certified public accountants.

The certified public accountants have their State societies. There is one in each State. Mr. Correa, who is going to follow me, represents the New York society, which is the largest of these State societies. They are totally distinct from the American Institute of Accountants. Of course, some men belong to both, but they are entirely different organizations.

Mr. Correa and I have talked this over, and we are going to try not to duplicate what we say. His approach to it is a little different from mine, although not in any way inconsistent.

Now, the way the accountants get into this practice before Government agencies very simply is this: The principal thing that they do is practice before the Treasury Department. Of course, the accountants will make up the annual reports of the balance sheets and the income statements for the preceding year of corporations and businesses. Lawyers cannot do that. They have never done it and have never tried to do it. Accountants do that sort of work.

It is perfectly natural when the accountant has done that and has presented the corporation with a statement of its income for the corporation to say, "All right; you put it down and make out our incometax return," which the accountant does and has done for 35 years. I would venture to say that the great preponderance of income-tax returns are and always have been made out by accountants, and to a very minor extent by lawyers.

Then, let us say, they file the income-tax return. After a while the Bureau of Internal Revenue may question it. Then the corporation, or whoever the people are, turn to the accountant and say, "Well, Mr. Jones, you made out this return. Now, go down and tell them what it is about." He goes down to the Bureau of Internal Revenue representing the corporation of the individual client or whatever it is and attempts to explain the correctness of his return.