REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL

ETHICS AND GRIEVANCES.

To the Georgia Bar Association:

Mr. President: Your Committee on Legal Ethics and Grievances beg leave to submit the following report:

Since the last meeting of the Association the Chairman of your Committee has received several charges and complaints against members of the Bar of this State, one only being a member of this Association. Happily this was settled before formal investigation by the Committee.

After correspondence with a former president of this Association on the subject of procedure, I, as Chairman of your Committee, informed the complainant that as to charges filed with this Committee against non-members of this Association, the Committee had heretofore consistently declined to entertain complaints against members of the bar who are not members of this Association. The complaint against two attorneys was on account of collections entrusted and made, unreasonable delay and withholding remittance to client. The complaint against a third attorney charged generally-only"unprofessional conduct."

In this connection your Committee noted with pleasure the following from one of the complainants hereinbefore referred to: "We are very much pleased to report the fact that this matter has been settled, and that we therefore withdraw our complaint. We realize, that while your organization has been created to promote the interests of its attorney members, we take it also that your organization is anxious to discourage and discountenance conduct of this kind. We do not resort to the Association until all efforts prove of no avail."

Attention is called to the following interesting copy of com

munication from a distinguished member of this Association, addressed to the Chairman of this Committee:

"March 1, 1916.

"Dear Sir: From some repeated experiences with members of the bar who need educating along that line, I am prompted to ask you to consider a deliverance by your Committee at the next meeting on the subject of an attorney going to the opposite party instead of to his counsel to discuss the case, make propositions of settlement, etc."

"March 21, 1916.

"Dear Mr. Hutchins: I found after looking over the Code of Ethics again that the subject I wanted a deliverance about is covered already. I do not know how I managed to overlook it before."

Ignorance of ethics and right conduct in the legal profession of Georgia is inexcusable, and education therein is amply and fully afforded every lawyer by the "Canons of Professional Ethics" of the American Bar Association, adopted and published by this Association in every annual report; which is but an enlargement of a briefer, but no better Code of Duty and Ethics than has been contained in all of the Codes of Georgia since 1863. So whenever in doubt or semi-darkness as to professional conduct or duty, let every member but pick up his "Key Number," insert and open his Canons of Ethics, and there flashes light and rules for good conduct and "safety first" for his guidance and protection.

From an examination by the Chairman of your Committee of every report of the Association since 1895, in only two instances during these years have complaints been filed with this Committee against a member of the Association.

Your Committee, therefore, notes with satisfaction and the organization is to be felicitated upon the truth and the proof of the fact that the Association continues to stand for the best ethics and traditions of the profession.

Respectfully submitted,
N. L. HUTCHINS,

Chairman.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION AND ADMISSION

Mr. President:

TO THE BAR.

"Old is the song I sing,

Old as the hills,

Old as the chickens the khitmutgars bring,
Old as my unpaid tailor's bills."

The above, it may be explained, is quoted from Kipling, and the "chickens" therein referred to are the feathered, biped kind, known also as fowls, and not the other kind that are never old. I might also add that the last simile in the quotation is not taken personally by the Chairman.

The object of this quotation is to call attention to the fact that for at least eighteen years last past one Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar after another, and year after year, has rendered its report to this Association, all of them urging or suggesting reforms, and often recommending the same reforms, none of which have been carried into effect. There has been no change in the requirements as to admission to the bar of this State since 1897.

The Chairman communicated with the other members of the Committee, four in number, asking them for any suggestions as to what the report should contain. Two of them were heard from, both in substance putting it up to the Chairman to make the report. Of the two members not heard from, it is to be noticed that one of them has, during his long term of service at the bar, been a member of this Committee previously, and no doubt he feels the futility of making recommendations that will not be carried into effect; so that what is here stated is but the personal expression of the Chairman of the Committee.

In the first place, the Chairman suggests that there is need

of reform, and he believes that a very large majority of the bar will agree with him in this general statement.

As the law now is, any male person, whether a citizen of this State or an alien who has been a resident of the State two years, and who has declared his intention to become a citizen, can be admitted to the bar of this State. An alien under like circumstances cannot become a voter, he cannot hold office, but he can enjoy an equal or greater privilege, without ever becoming a citizen. He becomes an officer of court, he takes an oath to support the Constitution of this State and of the United States, while at the same time owing allegiance to some foreign government, prince or potentate. This should not be there should be no dual allegiance possible. This may or may not be an important matter at this time, but a situation might arise where it would become of considerable importance. In any event, such a condition is wrong in principle. Then again, an applicant should at least have attained his legal majority before his admission. This might work a hardship in some cases, but on the whole it would have a good effect in that it would make for more legal study and learning on the part of the applicant.

Another requirement is, that the applicant should have a certificate from two practicing members of the bar of the State, as to his moral character, and also certifying to the fact that they have examined the applicant upon the various 'branches of the law and deem him qualified for admission to the bar. The last part of this certificate is not of great importance, as the applicant must nevertheless stand his examination or get a law school diploma. But the matter of character is of great importance. Any two attorneys of the bar of this State can certify to the moral character of the applicant, but it may be assumed that all attorneys are not of themselves of such good moral character as to qualify them to be judges of another's character. Would it not be better for the judge who holds the examination to make inquiries from reliable sources, and that he should then be required to certify that he believes from a careful investigation made, that the

applicant is of good moral character, and well qualified in that particular to become a member of the bar?

The law should go further and require that the applicant should study a code of ethics, for example, the code formulated by the American Bar Association, and the examination prepared by the Board of Examiners should be on this code as well as on the other branches of the law now prescribed.

It has often been recommended by this Committee that all applicants for admission, whether graduates of law schools or not, should stand the examination prescribed by the Board of Examiners. It seems and has always seemed to the Chairman that to state this question is to argue it. There can be no good reason to the contrary. If graduates of the law schools are properly prepared, they should have no difficulty in passing the examination.

The truth is, that there are now too many lawyers. You may search the State from corner to corner, and nowhere will you find a community that complains of a scarcity of lawyers. The result of this situation is, that many who are admitted to practice abandon the profession after a short and dismal trial, thus wasting time that might have been devoted to more gainful occupations. Others succeed so poorly that through the temptation that comes from lack of success they fall into questionable and unethical methods in the effort to obtain more business. Thus they become the means of bringing the profession into disrepute.

To relieve this situation, it might be suggested that there be a "closed season" for a period of time so far as admission to the bar is concerned, and at the same time an "open season," when every sportsman would have the privilege of going gunning for any one caught in the act of studying law with the view of becoming a lawyer.

It is of prime importance to lawyers as good citizens to see to it that the rights and property of the laity must be protected. The question arises, when should a young lawyer be turned loose on such rights and property? Of course, the obvious answer to this is, that unless the beginners have clients