antagonistic theory, but by reference to a committee which should consider it in the light of the decision heretofore made, reached by The American Bar Association, and in a manner consistent with the action you have taken this morning. Third, do I think it is appropriate for this Association to continue financial support of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws? I cannot believe, except as a part of this debate, that that inquiry was seriously propounded. This whole movement was started by this organization; it is one of the chief jewels in its crown; it has accomplished a very large amount of constructive work; and it continues to give a very large amount of time to this whole field, submitting year after year, and in tentative form so that you are fully informed, the whole progress of discussion going on there. Practically every member of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws is an active member of this Association, constantly subject to your suggestion and criticism, and officially when these preliminary and tentative reports are made to you, you always have an opportunity, by reference, as you have in the past, or by suggestion or directing or even controlling the theory upon which acts will be considered by the National Conference. I submit, therefore, that that body is undertaking at less expense to this Association and in a more effective way than it could do through a mere committee, a very important part of the functions of this Association which it should properly support, as it has in the past; and it is my judgment that in view of that work The American Bar Association should greatly increase its appropriations in the future. The President: The question is on the adoption of this resolution No. 7. As it does not require the approval of legislation a two-thirds vote is not required. A majority will carry resolution No. 7. All those in favor of resolution No. 7 will say "Aye." Contrary, "No." The Chair is in doubt. All those in favor of the resolution will please rise and the Secretary will count. Secretary MacCracken: Sixty members are standing, not counting those in the back of the room. If there are any of those in back who wish to be counted, will they please step into the aisle? The President: All those opposed to resolution No. 7 will rise. A majority has voted against this resolution, and it is defeated. That does not repeal or in any way modify the by-law relating to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. (See report, infra, p. 385.) Next is the report of the Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances that was passed over. Mr. Thomas Francis Howe, of Chicago, the Chairman of the committee. Mr. Howe: The report of the committee has been printed, and if you have not examined it you can. I will not refer to it at this time. It speaks for itself. I do, however, wish to call your attention to two matters which have had consideration at the meeting of the committee held here at Denver. It has become apparent to the members of your committee that while the standards of business ethics have, throughout the country, been steadily advancing in almost all vocations, professional standards, not only of our profession but of others, have not kept pace with them or in advance of them, but have been steadily lowering and lowering. That this is particularly apparent in our profession is shown by the commercialization of the practice of the law. It is a subject which is in time going to require serious consideration at your hands. With that in view your committee has taken steps toward some consideration of the subject, in two forms, both from an educational standpoint. The first is that we find that while a number of accredited law schools include in their curriculum the study of professional ethics, it is usually only an optional course and is very largely disregarded by the student. We therefore adopted a resolution that we should undertake, in cooperation with the Section on Legal Education and with the Association of American Law Schools, a consideration of the subject as to whether or not, first, we could get all accredited law schools to have the subject included in their curriculum, not as an optional course but as one of the compulsory subjects; and, secondly, what we might do with the other law schools who are not included in the accredited list in that respect. Now it has occurred to us that one of the reasons why the other law schools do not include the subject in their curriculum is the fact that they have not at their disposal qualified instructors or a convenient means of obtaining instructors on the subject. We think that objection can best be met by members of this Association, in the various communities where such law schools are located, volunteering their services in such work, and the committee will be glad to have any such volunteers communicate with it in order that it may furnish them helpful data and helpful advice in that respect. We hope that many will volunteer for that purpose, from those cities where such law schools are located. The second subject has to do entirely with the question of the commercialization of the practice of the law, particularly in respect to the relations between lawyers and lay intermediaries. This commercialization stands between that personal relation of attorney and client which it has always been the tradition of the profession should exist and which does not exist in many cases today, as we who have studied the subject well know. With the ever-increasing tendency of the times to standardize every line of human endeavor, and with the commercial requirements of the day to support them, there are constant attempts to bring about a supposed standardization of the furnishing of legal services. You would probably be almost amused, if you stood in the position of the committee, by the extent to which these attempts have gone. Why, the committee had before it quite recently a full page newspaper advertisement from a large city in which a concern selling automobile supplies offers free legal services to its patrons in connection with any accident which they have with their automobiles. Of course that is an extreme case, but it only goes to show to what extent lawyers will lend themselves to such practices, as this plan to attract business can only exist because of the cooperation of some lawyer or lawyers in the scheme. If we can educate the lawyer to the standards he should have, so that he will not cooperate in such schemes, then perhaps we will have accomplished something. The committee has that subject under consideration. It asks cooperation of all state and local bar associations in a consideration of that subject, and intends at some time-we hope in the near future to have a conference which will consider it and see what we can do to check this ever-increasing tendency to lower professional standards and to make the practice of the law a mere business. Charles J. Munz, of Colorado: I would like to ask Mr. Howe if the methods employed by the automobile concern are any more despicable than the employment by large banks of any number of attorneys who grab off all the legal business in the community. The President: Will Mr. Howe answer that question? Mr. Howe: The committee at its last meeting approved an opinion which I hope you will all read when published which discusses that subject. It has to do with the relation of a trust officer of a trust company, who is a lawyer, with his employer in his representing trust estates for which it is the trustee, as an advocate in court. I think you will find that opinion covers the subject very fully, and the practice is disapproved. Edward T. Lee, of Illinois: I would like to ask Mr. Howe whether the committee has ever given any attention to what I might call wholesaling the law. We have in all our big cities today what you might call department stores of law. In Boston there is one large legal firm that occupies six stories of one of the principal buildings of that city. The head of that firm, is so much out of touch with the business that recently it found itself on opposite sides of the same case. Now I would like to ask also whether he thinks the young men who are employees of that firm of lawyers are lawyers in the proper sense; whether they can support that moral status in the community which belongs to the lawyer, of having a duty to the court, to the community and to his client. If he is employed, does he not sell his conscience as well as his services to the firm for which he works? The President: Will Mr. Howe answer that question? Mr. Howe: The Chairman of your committee will say this, that if you wish, he could talk to you three hours on the subject, because we have had it under consideration for the last three years. It has many complex situations and angles. I do not want to directly answer your question, for I take it that you, in asking that question, "Mr. Lee, refer to the employment of a lawyer by a firm of lawyers. Am I right? Mr. Lee: Mr. Howe: Well, that is something that we have not given very much consideration to, because we presume that the lawyer associated with such a firm is in that personal relation with the firm's clients which should exist between attorney and client. That does not mean a personal relation with the head of a firm. I am the head of a firm myself. I don't know everything that goes on in my office, and I don't pretend to. But I do know this, that in every instance there is a personal relationship existing between the lawyer who handles a case for our client and the client, and I think that will to some extent answer your question. I do not think that this is the evil we have to meet. The evil we have to meet is the lawyer who is selling his services to somebody else who is a lay intermediary, where the relationship that exists is a relationship of master and servant with a lay intermediary instead. of that of attorney and client with a client. If the Association wants to hear the subject discussed at some length, or to give serious consideration to that, I would be glad to do so at a proper time but the time allotted here for this report will not permit me to do so now. (See report, infra, p. 489.) The President: The next is the report of the Conference of Bar Association Delegates. I introduce Mr. Josiah Marvel, of Wilmington, Delaware, the Vice-Chairman of the Conference. Mr. Marvel: The Conference of Bar Association Delegates has no recommendations to submit to you for your action, and I will only take |