there is no appeal. We have codes of legal ethics in many states, and able text-books on the same subject; but are they used in the schools and offices? Are the students examined thereon? An examination of the courses of instruction of many law schools and the papers of many an examining board has satisfied me that little is taught on this subject and less asked by our examiners.

"Correct ethical conceptions are the foundations of what we call character, and while I am aware that the best place to teach practical ethics is by the fireside in the home, and that nothing is more difficult to inspire in the human heart than right desires, yet my experience in college, the law school, and as a member of the board of law examiners in my own state has given me a confirmed opinion that we should lay greater stress on instruction and examination in the ethics of the profession.

"We cannot afford to neglect education in character. It, equally with learning, is necessary to success and greatness at the bar. I would not be understood, however, as believing that any merely theoretical instruction in ethics will avail to implant in the human heart that deep desire for right living which must always precede the practical application of correct ethical standards to the daily life. I do wish, however, to urge that we cannot afford to neglect instruction along that line, so that the rising generation of the profession may not err from lack of knowledge.

"Education is not only the inculcation of the experience of the race. It is also the acquisition of knowledge from example and the experience of the individual, and I believe it to be true that the best instruction in ethics is derived from example and personal experience. Nevertheless, the fact affords no excuse

for our neglecting to draw lessons from the history of the past."

In the light of this testimony, therefore, we may state that the ethical training of the lawyer should take its proper rank, and that all our efforts to improve the preliminary, theoretical, and practical education of the lawyer should be animated by the conviction that, unless we make good men, as well as successful men, we are not contributing to the advancement of the race or discharging our duties as members of an honorable profession. Well, then, may every school in the land require that its students receive systematic instruction in the ethical duties of the lawyer, and, now that the American Bar Association has made its code of ethics available, there is no reason why we should look further for a test. Let the principles there enumerated be firmly imbedded into the minds of the candidates for admission to the bar, and we Ishall have made a distinct advance toward realizing the nobler purpose of our profession. It is true that no code of ethics and no course of training can entirely eliminate those who are unscrupulous and unworthy, nor will our efforts always achieve justice; but we may at least enjoy the sweet consolation that comes from the conviction of duty well done, and, when disaster defeats our purpose, as sometimes it will, we may take refuge in the fact so beautifully expressed by Lowell:

"Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne,

Yet that scaffold sways the future, and
behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping
watch above his own."

To the lawyer of America, properly trained for his task, there open up possibilities which stagger the ambitious.

To others are intrusted the spiritual and physical well-being of the race, but to him is committed the prime task of maintaining justice, of ministering at the throne of the impartial goddess with such loyalty that every man, no matter how humble his origin or how exalted his station, shall receive his exact meed

of reward or punishment, and that America, blessed among nations with responsibilities and opportunities that mark her for a career of predominant distinction, may go down in history acclaimed by all as in truth

"The land of the free and the home of the brave."

*

HE term "legal ethics," as I under

THE

stand it, is the standard of action as applied to the practice of law by members of the legal profession. At the outset, we are met by the inquiry whether there is any separate or distinct standard of action in one department of life as distinguished from another? As the legal term "negligence" ramifies into every pathway of life, so the term "ethics" permeates all human action, and, while variant in application, in principle should be constant in every phase of human activity. The standard of action of a man and the motives which control him should be the same, in whatever relation of life he may be placed. Legal ethics is not different from medical ethics, or social ethics, or commercial ethics. They all refer to the same standard of action in the different relations of life. The idea that there may be two standards of action for menone for his professional or commercial life, and one for his private life, or political life has found a lodgment in the minds of many people, and has been the

*An address delivered before the Albany Law School in the Hubbard Course on Legal Ethics.

source of much injury to professional and political character; for it must be admitted, although reluctantly, that some men in business, in politics, and in their profession, regard the possession of two characters as proper, if not essential, to them. They essay to carry the one in one pocket and the other in the other pocket—a business character in the one; a personal character in the other-and, as occasion requires, they draw upon the one or the other as needed. The standard of one is higher than the other, and the use of the business or professional character in private affairs is indignantly scorned, and the standard which they set for their business or professional life is repudiated in their private life.

Waiving the question of the ethical propriety of this dual character, and the variance of professional and private standards in the same person, the objection to it seems to me to be fatal as a practical matter; for, in the hurly-burly of life, a man is apt to draw upon the wrong character and to find himself hopelessly involved in "the battle of the standards" between private, professional, and public rectitude. I invoke the principle of universality of one standard of

right, though its application be as variant as the hues of the rainbow.

The language of Cicero, applied by Lord Mansfield to the law merchant, may justly be applied: "Non erit alia lex Romæ, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia post hac, sed et apud omnes gentes, et omni tempore, una eademque lex obtinebit."

The idea that the practice of law involves a different application of ethical principles from the ordinary affairs of life has led to much confusion and is the source of much error, and I make the broad assertion that the standard of propriety in the practice of law as held generally by the leaders of our profession is as high and delicate as that held by any profession, business, or vocation, not excepting the ministry itself. Much of the criticism which has come to our profession is from a total misconception of the duties of the lawyer. He practices before a human judge, upholding human law, and the profession is often held accountable for the miscarriage of divine justice.

Law, in its generic sense, from the Latin "lex," refers to human law-that rule of action prescribed for the government and control of man. It must be distinguished from "jus," the absolute right, which has its synonym in the Greek "dike," justice. The one is human; the other divine. Human law is at last but the human concept of the divine law. It is the divine law filtrated through the conduit of humanity-the human reflex of divine right. The latter is absolute, unconditional, original, inflexible, divine; the former represents human effort to realize the divine right.

The failure to make this distinction. often causes a popular outcry against the law, because some one has escaped its clutches whom it is thought should have received the severest condemnation.

How important, therefore, is it to remember what law the criminal is charged with breaking, the lawyer with defending, and the judge with upholding!

Municipal law defines with accuracy, in its proper jurisdiction, its conception of murder, and writes it on the statute book. The criminal is to be tried under that law, and no other. The question therefore is, not whether he is guilty either under the municipal law of another jurisdiction or of the divine law, but whether he has offended the law that has jurisdiction of his case. He is tried under the municipal law. The lawyer, the court, and the jury are criticised by the outsider, oftentimes, for not having sustained and defended the divine law. What man, for instance, brought to the bar of a civil court to answer for the crime of murder, could successfully plead that he has not "been angry with his brother without a cause" and yet that is the test of murder under the divine law.

And could any one claim that a lawyer was lacking in a proper regard for legal ethics who undertook to defend a man, under the municipal law of our states, who admitted that he had conceived in his heart his brother's murder, or had "nursed his wrath to keep it warm" against his brother, without committing any overt act, as required by the municipal law? Human law necessarily cannot be perfect, as humanity is imperfect, and unworthy men doubtlessly escape its punishment; but this may be necessary to save the innocent from injustice.

The first principle necessary for a successful and honorable career in the profession is the possession and retention of the simple, homely virtue of honesty. A recommendation came under my notice not very long ago of a young man who was said to be "very intelligent, alert,

active in business, and tolerably honest." The type of honesty I have in mind is not that which is above temptation when none exists, and which plumes itself upon its stalwart virtue on the tranquil seas of prosperity, but rather that sort which, amid the storms of life and the intense struggle for existence, sits undisturbed amidst it all, indifferent alike to temptation and the blandishments of exalted preferment..

"The honest heart that's free frae all
Intended fraud or guile,
However fortune kicks the ball,

Has aye some cause to smile."

No man ever became a confirmed thief in a day, as no man ever became a confirmed drunkard in a day; but the constant violation of the principles of common honesty in little things so weakens the moral sinews as to make resistance impossible when the great temptation comes. The profession to which we belong affords greater opportunities than any other for pillaging the publicthe innocent public.

Pause for a moment to consider how close is the relation of lawyer and client! So close and sacred is that relation that no court will compel either to divulge the secrets imparted in their confidences. In order to successfully conduct the business of your client it is necessary— absolutely necessary that he should give you, not only the various statements of his case, but the secrets of his inmost heart. These are yours to toy with, to play with, as you please. He is supposed not to be learned in the law as you are, and every advantage which the greater knowledge of your profession can give you for the advancement of your client may be turned by you, in an unguarded moment, into an engine of his destruction. He can withhold nothing from you. All information which he has is yours, and if that information

is used for your advancement, and not his, you are guilty of the foulest crime against humanity. Therefore, the law declares that you shall not buy your client's claim. Your business is to prosecute it, not to trade with it. You do not stand on equal footing. You have knowledge as to the legal status of that claim which he cannot have, and the law will not sanction dealings between you— and properly so.

Again, you may start into the profession honest in every fiber of your nature, with every emotion of your heart leading you into the paths of uprightness; but, if you would remain honest and avoid the danger of temptation, I urge upon you the adoption of one cardinal principle, and if I succeed in bringing to you nothing worthy of your consideration except this, and this principle shall become a part of your professional life from its beginning to its close, I shall feel amply repaid. It is this: Never put a dollar of any man's money in bank to your own credit. On this commandment hangs all the law and the prophets. Never put into bank to your individual credit a dollar of fiduciary. funds. Let not the tempter persuade you that on to-morrow you will remit it. "To-morrow may never come." Let not the delusion that your plethoric bank account smiles at the addition of only a few hundred dollars belonging to another, when if that belonging to another were used the account itself would many times pay it; let not the appealing message from a distance calling you away, without the opportunity of going to bank, tempt you to the use of your client's funds in your pockets, though your every intention is to replace it on

to-morrow.

If you would realize the satisfaction of a professional life well spent when you come to its close, I entreat you to

adopt this rule on the first day of your entrance to the profession, and in the language of Fitz James, declare: "Come one, come all, this rock shall fly from its firm base as soon as I." A failure of its observance has marked the progress of our noble profession with many victims who entered its portals with as noble purposes as you have to-night, yet slowly and stealthily a professional life, otherwise creditable and noble, has found its end in disaster and disgrace. Where client's funds are commingled with the lawyer's, he checks upon both, not knowing, as he claims, that he is checking out money which belongs to another. This is no excuse; he ought to know it.

It may be asked, how can you live up to the principle laid down, and how can you avoid having your client's funds in bank to your own credit before they are transmitted? The answer is plain: Have two bank accounts-one an individual account, in which every dollar belongs to you; the other your account as attorney, into which go all the funds of your clients, with your bank book. showing the amount in each entry, to whom it is due, and the cause to which it is credited. Then, if death comes, the books speak for themselves. If you collect $100 for a client, and your fee is $10, put the $100 in bank to your credit as attorney, and check to your individual account your fee of $10. This you can do, for the $10 is yours, not your client's.

A question at the present time, quite prominent in the public mind and the subject of much discussion, is that of the propriety of a lawyer, who is counsel for the great corporations of the country, advising them in the conduct of their business in such a way as to keep them within the law and not amenable to its prohibitions. The question is one of deep public interest, as it relates to the lawyer who advises the client and the

law which is involved. It is sometimes more bluntly put: "Should a lawyer advise a client how to evade the law?" The answer may be put as bluntly: "It is his duty always to advise his client how to avoid the law, and not to break it."

I find that abstract discussion is never so satisfactory as a concrete example in an effort at clearness. Suppose, for instance, a law exists against trusts-commonly understood to be an aggregation of corporations collected under one organization; and suppose a lawyer, representing one of these trusts, is called upon to give his advice as to how such an organization might operate for the accomplishment of similar ends under a different form and organization. It must be remembered at the outset that the lawyer's duty is to advise in reference to the law as made and as he finds it, and in such capacity, with no power to make or unmake law. The propriety of the law as made is for the legislator; its observance, as made, is the duty of the lawyer. If what his client desires is not to break the law, but advice by which he can accomplish the same object legally, in spite of the law, it seems to me that he clearly has the right so to advise, unless he is met by another principle which no lawyer can fail to observe.

The lawyer must not only be a defender of the law as it exists, but he must not forget that he is also a citizen of his state and of the United States, and as such citizen he must do nothing that will encourage dangerous policies or develop dangerous agencies in the republic. The client who wants his advice finds the law in his pathway; the lawyer, by his ingenuity, finds a way around it, and in so doing he does not violate the law. He only shows the weakness of the law in preventing what it may have intended to prevent. May