business, in many cases, avoids counsel where counsel is necessary, and individuals fail to seek legal assistance where such assistance is greatly to be desired. This is to the detriment of the lawyer, but equally to the detriment of society. The result is also an indifference on the part of the public to the fact that powerful agencies, in many instances, supplant the lawyer in fields where the technical knowledge of the lawyer is essential to the protection of the public. Complaint is made that certain trust companies traffic in legal services as merchants deal in merchandise, and often give them in exchange. for, or in the hope of, lucrative trusteeships and patronage. Lay agencies claim the right to practice conveyancing and the drafting of wills, although no subjects known require deeper learning in the law. Likewise, expert accountants and so-called tax advisers advertise in a most lurid fashion their ability to present all tax matters and advise the public in regard to every matter therewith connected, although it is obvious to everyone that correct conclusions in regard to such matters require an interpretation of the provisions of the statutes, a knowledge and understanding of the judicial decision, going back a century or more, and a wellgrounded knowledge of the fundamentals of the common law.

It is, of course, impossible to know a portion of the law without a correct understanding of the law as a whole.

In connection with the attempts of these lay agencies to practice law in some particular field without having had the general training of lawyers, it may be pertinent to quote a statement found in the report of the Special Committee to the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association, appearing on page 227 of the tentative program and committee reports of the present meeting of the Association. This committee, of which Mr. Elihu Root is Chairman, refers to the suggestion that there must be different kinds of training

to produce different kinds of lawyers, and says:

"With this position we do not agree. From the first interview with his client to the last step in litigation the lawyer must be trained to apprehend and to understand the pertinent facts in logical sequence, to perceive clearly the questions of law presented and to extract from statutes and decisions the principles of law applicable. And in every case, whatever its nature, he must be able to apply the fundamental principles of the common law."

Obviously, the interests of the state and public require that, in matters of legal advice of whatever character, the public be protected from unqualified lay agencies, as well as from the activities of incompetent or unscrupulous members of the Bar.

We can not, however, expect the public to sympathize with this view until membership in the Bar carries with it a guarantee of honesty and efficiency and it is equally evident that we can not expect the profession to continue to be attractive to the best educated and most ambitious of our young men unless membership in the Bar is made a badge of honor and admits him to a field of practice in which he is not required to compete with lay agencies and unscrupulous practitioners.

For these reasons your Committee is convinced that the matter most important to the future of the Bar is a practical carrying out of the recommendation of your Conference in favor of legislative action in the several states, recognizing the Bar of the State as a body politic and giving it power to govern itself, both in the matter of admissions and discipline.

Respectfully,

CLARENCE N. GOODWIN, Chairman, JAMES BYRNE,

W. H. H. PIATT,

THOMAS W. SHELTON, CLEMENT MANLY,

Committee.

Cincinnati, Ohio, August 29, 1921.