practice law exists as an attribute of American citizenship, independently of considerations of fitness for the tremendous responsibilities which attach to that vocation. The logical result of that attitude would be to abolish all tests of fitness and to make a man eligible to practice at the Bar as he becomes eligible to vote upon offering proper evidence of his having reached his majority. I doubt indeed if it is desirable to have any age fixed for beginning the study of law. The requirement should be one of general educational and professional equipment and this should be made so high as to prevent any but men of adequate training and maturity of mind from entering upon the independent practice of the profession. What the profession needs is not an influx of boys who have been crammed so as to pass the Bar examinations, but men who are qualified in point of judgment and maturity of mind as well as of learning to carry the responsibilities of the most exacting of the professions.

""The argument for the requirement of a period of clerkship in the office of a practicing lawyer seems to me conclusive. Neither the requisite technical knowledge nor the proper professional spirit can, in my opinion, be acquired in any other way, but I am convinced that at the present time not more than a year of service in an office can wisely be exacted. If more were demanded it would inevitably be at the expense of the systematic training in legal principles and the knowledge of law which, under existing conditions, can be obtained only in a good law school. I am sure that I am safe in saying that the training of the law schools has come to be indispensable and that it is only through a combination of this training and that of the law office that a man can derive a proper equipment for the work of the profession. It seems to me also that it would be unfortunate SO to emphasize the clerkship requirement as to induce students to reduce the period of law school study below three years. That period has come to be recognized as the standard of legal education in this country and is being adopted as rapidly as possible by every school that is animated by a proper sense of its obligations to the profession and to the community which the profession serves. This is especially true of the State Universities of the West and Middle West as well as of the better schools in the East and South. Under these circumstances it would seem to be the part of wisdom so to frame the rules as to furnish no temptation to law students to interrupt their professional study before it has been properly rounded out in the law school.

"I venture to suggest, however, that a five-year requirement would be eminently proper in the case of candidates who make their way to the Bar otherwise than through

the medium of the law school. I think that any one who is familiar with the conditions under which the student in a law office pursues his reading, will not be inclined to dispute the statement that a single year in a good law school does more for the education of a man in the rules and principles of law than two or even three years spent in an office. To require five years, therefore, of every one who has not spent, let us say, at least two years in the study of law in an approved law school, would seem to be only a reasonable and proper discrimination between the two classes of students.'

"On this same subject, a committee of the Bar Association of the City of New York, of which committee Mr. Francis Lynde Stetson was chairman, prepared a memorandum for the New York Court of Appeals and recommended an amendment of the rules of admission as follows:

"The provisions for requisite periods of study must be fulfilled by serving a regular clerkship in the office of a practicing attorney of the Supreme Court of this state after the age of eighteen years; or after such age by satisfactory attendance upon, and successfully completing, the prescribed course of instruction at an incorporated law school or a law school connected with an incorporated college or university having a law department, organized with competent instructors and professors, in which instruction as hereinafter provided is regularly given; the entire period of study of students to be not less than four years, of which at least one year must be spent in the office of a practicing attorney after successful completion of the law school course, the aggregate combined periods of such clerkship and such law school attendance being not less than four years.'

"We close the presentation of the discussion on proposition XI with the words of Mr. Edward S. Cox-Sinclair, of London, in his paper in 1910 before the Section, on "Requirements for Admission to the Bar in Great Britain and Her Possessions and On the Continent of Europe-A General Survey" (35 A. B. A. Rep. 809-828). He says:

"It will be seen that although the period and type of practical training varies in the different countries under review, yet in each of these systems a term of practical work, even if not obligatory is coming to be regarded as an essential preliminary. Practical training reaches its highest point in such countries as Germany and Belgium, where in effect there is, as with you, a fusion of the two branches of the profession. In England (and in other countries such as France and Italy) where there is a separation between the branches, practical training in the office of an experienced advocate is so common as to almost afford a rule. The tendency every

where is in the direction of imposing a period of actual practical work, and where such an obligation already exists of making that period longer and its methods more stringent. It is in fact becoming everywhere recognized that the great interests entrusted to lawyers should not be risked in the hands of amateurs or left to the chance of casual capacity.""

This proposition was discussed at considerable length at the meeting of the Section of Legal Education of the American Bar Association in 1912, and arguments in favor of the importance of this one year's clerkship were presented by Hon. Frank Sullivan Smith, a member of the New York Board of Bar Examiners (37 A. B. A. Rep. pp. 721-727). He expressed not only his own views but those of his colleagues upon the board, Hon. William P. Goodelle and Hon. Franklin M. Danaher. We quote from the conclusion of his forceful remarks as follows (Id. 724-727):

"The new rules of the New York Court of Appeals, which took effect July 1, 1911, mark a great advance in legal education in New York, in that they require of one class of students four years of study of the law, of which one year must be passed continuously by serving a clerkship in the office of a practicing attorney. Unfortunately this class is restricted to those who are not graduates of a college or university. No such salutary rule applies to college graduates, who may be admitted after three years of study, wholly by serving a clerkship in the office of a practicing attorney, or wholly by attending a law school, or partly by serving such clerkship and partly by attending a law school. There is, in fact, at the present time no adequate reason for such a distinction in New York between college graduates and non-college graduates. Ten years ago there seemed to be some ground for the rule. Then there were 14 per cent. less failures in Bar examinations among college graduates than among non-college graduates. In 1911 this difference had diminished to 2.3 per cent. The cause is apparent. Meantime, the Court of Appeals raised the requirements of preliminary education of non-college graduates from 48 regents' counts to 60 counts, equivalent to high-school graduation. A college education had not lost its advantage, but high-school education had proved its efficiency. There is, then, no reason to warrant applying the requirements of a year's clerkship in the office

of a practicing attorney to a non-college graduate and at the same time relieving a college graduate from the same requirement.

"Thus far the question under discussion has been considered from the viewpoint of a Bar Examiner, as bearing upon the greater or less facility of the student in passing his examination for admission to the Bar and his immediate fitness to practice law. If we study the young lawyer after his admission, we find other important reasons to sustain a compulsory preliminary clerkship.

"1. It has an inestimable educational value in familiarizing the student with the duties of a lawyer in his office and in court. He makes the acquaintance of the judges before whom and of the lawyers with whom he will practice. He learns the practical use of the legal terms, the theoretical use of which he has learned in the law school. He acquires a savoir faire which upon his admission distinguishes the finished lawyer from the tyro and makes him at once useful to his employer, his clients, and to himself. Without such preparation a law school graduate may be a fair constitutional lawyer, but of little practical use in a busy law office.

"2. A year's clerkship does much to determine character, and in the proper environment to foster it. In New York, particularly in the city of New York, the work of the Committee on Character is of the utmost importance. Its scope was extended by the last legislature in order to give unquestionable authority to the court rules requiring that candidates for admission to the Bar must give evidence of general fitness for the practice of law. This committee is composed of lawyers of the highest character and attainments. Their work is aided by an opportunity to learn of the conduct of the candidate in surroundings similar to those in which he will practice his profession. The importance of ascertaining the character and fitness of men to become lawyers is painfully demonstrated in New York City by the fact that there are constantly pending in the Appellate Division of the First Department between 100 and 200 proceedings for disbarment.

"3. This requirement has an economic value. In Greater New York there are 17,000 lawyers. Their average annual compensation, notwithstanding the large earnings of the principal commercial and corporation lawyers is said to be less than $1,000. Sacrifice the number of lawyers to fitness and the average compensation will be increased, the temptation to "corrupt the fountain of justice at its source" will be less, and there will be fewer who will use their knowledge of the law as an instrument to promote fraud.

"That something to this end has been accomplished in New York is shown by the fact that the per cent. of rejections by the State Board of Law Examiners has 'increased in ten years from 30 per cent. to 57 per cent.

in 1911, and that while the population of the state has increased nearly 2,000,000 the number of applicants for admission to the Bar has decreased from an average of 922 ten years ago to 813 in the year 1911.

"4. The year of clerkship should be exclusive of all other occupations, and should be safeguarded from deception by rules similar to those in force in New York with respect to non-college graduates. It should be continuous, and not made up of vacations, which occur when the student can obtain the least advantage from experience in a law office.

"5. The year of law clerkship should be subsequent to a three years' course in a law school, in order that the student may understand and make practical application of the terminology and principles he has learned in law school.

"6. The year of law clerkship should be compulsory. The other learned professions, particularly medicine, require more thorough preparation for entrance thereto than does the law in the greater number of our states. It costs less in time and money to enter the law than to become a horse doctor or a dentist.

"7. The last and ideal requirement of a compulsory law clerkship, which should and ultimately will be realized, is that it shall follow a three years' course in law school, in which, however, due attention should still be given to the teaching of practice.

"Entrance to the law should not be too cheap or too easy. Let the rule of survival of the fittest apply, and put an end to the system by which a man can engage in commercial or industrial pursuits by day, attend law school at night, and enter the profession of the law, without having to become a real lawyer, and liable soon to yield to the everpresent temptation to make his little learning a dangerous thing, and to cause the law to become in his hands the 'sword of oppression,' instead of 'the shield of innocence.'

XII

Candidates for admission shall present themselves prepared for examination in the following subjects: Constitutional law, including the constitutions of the United States and .... (the candidate's state), equity, the law of real and personal property, evidence, decedents' estates, landlord and tenant, mortgages, contracts, partnership, corporations, crimes, torts, agency, sales, negotiable instruments, do

mestic relations, common law pleading and practice, federal and state practice, conflict of law, professional ethics, the federal statutes relating to the judiciary and to bankruptcy, and the development in .... (the candidate's state) of the principles of the law, as exemplified by the decisions of its highest Appellate Court and by statutory enact

ments.

This proposition in the above form was approved at the 1909 meeting of the Section. 34 A. B. A. Rep. 765. The replies since received by the committee indicate almost unanimous approval. A few suggestions as to amendments have been made, which will be found set forth in full in the report of the committee in 37 A. B. A. Rep. 874-877.

XIII

Names of all candidates for admission should be published by the Board for three days in succession, at least ten days before the examination, in a newspaper of general circulation throughout the state, and for four weeks in a law periodical, should there be one within the state jurisdiction. A similar publication should be made of the names of the candidates passed at the examination and at least ten days before the State Board's certificates are issued to the candidates.

This proposition was approved at the 1909 meeting of the Section. 34 A. B. A. Rep. 765. The opinions received since that time indicate almost universal approval. Two objections, however, are set forth in full in 37 A. B. A. Rep. 878, 879.

XIV

From the examination fees received the members of the State Board shall receive such compensation as the high

[NOTE: At the annual meeting of the American Bar Association in 1905, held at Narragansett Pier, R. I., the following resolution was adopted:

"Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed, of which the retiring President shall be Chairman, to report at the next meeting of this Association upon the advisability and practicability of the adoption of a code of professional ethics by this Association."

In the following year, at the St. Paul meeting of the American Bar Association, this committee reported that in its opinion the adoption of such a code was not only advisable, but, under existing conditions, of very great importance, especially in America, "where justice reigns only by and through the people under forms of law." It further reported that "the adoption and promulgation of a code of ethics by the American Bar Association is entirely practicable," and recommended the appointment of a committee of nine to report a "series of canons of professional ethics in the form of a code suitable for adoption and promulgation by the Association." 1 This new and enlarged committee consisted of Henry St. George Tucker, of Virginia, James G. Jenkins, of Wisconsin, William Wirt Howe, of Louisiana, Francis Lynde Stetson, of New York, Ezra R. Thayer, of Massachusetts, Franklin Ferriss, of Missouri, Thomas H. Hubbard, of New York, Frederick V. Brown, of Minnesota, and Lucien. Hugh Alexander, of Pennsylvania. elaborate preliminary report was made by it in 1907, at the meeting in Portland, Maine, 2 when the membership of the committee was enlarged, at its own request, so as to include Mr. Justice Brewer, of the District of Columbia, Mr. J. M. Dickinson, of Illinois, Mr. Alton B. Parker, of New York, Mr. George R. Peck, of Illinois, and Mr. Thomas Goode Jones, of Alabama.

An

In the following year, at the Seattle meeting of the Association, the committee made its final report, presenting a preamble, thirty-two "Canons of Ethics," and the "Lawyer's Oath of Admission." 3

On motion, the canons were taken up one by one, in a session of the whole Association, and considered and voted on separately. The discussion brought out some diversities of view. After considerable debate the thirteenth canon, relating to contingent fees, was

1 See A. B. A. Reports (1906), vol. 29, p. 600, where the report is given in full.

2 See A. B. A. Reports, vol. 31, pp. 61-64, 676-736. See A. B. A. Reports, vol. 33, pp. 567-586.

modified. But, with this exception, the thirty-two canons, with their preamble and the oath of admission, were, in the end, adopted as proposed. The whole code, as thus adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908, is given below.

I. PREAMBLE

In America, where the stability of courts and of all departments of government rests upon the approval of the people, it is peculiarly essential that the sysfor establishing and dispensing justice be developed to a high point of efficiency and so maintained that the public shall have absolute confidence in the

integrity and impartiality of its administration. The future of the republic, to a great extent, depends upon our maintenance of justice pure and unsullied. It cannot be so maintained unless the conduct and the motives of the members of our profession are such as to merit the approval of all just men.

II. THE CANONS OF ETHICS

No code or set of rules can be framed which will particularize all the duties of the lawyer in the varying phases of litigation or in all the relations of professional life. The following canons of ethics are adopted by the American Bar Association as a general guide, yet the enumeration of particular duties should not be construed as a denial of the existence of others equally imperative, though not specifically mentioned.

As originally proposed, this canon read as follows: "Contingent fees lead to many abuses, and where sanctioned by law should be under the supervision of the court." See A. B. A. Reports, vol. 33, p. 579.

The interesting discussion, in the general meeting of the Association, upon these Canons of Ethics, will be found in the A. B. A. Reports (1908), vol. 83, pp. 55-86.