IV. THE BILL PROVIDES A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF EXAMINATIONS. Under the present system, sometimes the examinations are largely formal matters, at other times they are rather severe tests. The fact that the examinations in general are entirely oral-as they must be unless the courts are willing to devote much more time to the matter than they can afford to giveadds an element of uncertainty which is not fair to the applicants. One applicant will be examined along a line of elementary propositions while another will be quizzed concerning abstruse legal principles or intricate statutory enactments. V. THE BILL WILL HAVE A DISTINCT TENDENCY TO ELEVATE THE INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL TONE OF THE BAR. It can hardly be doubted in this day that experts will perform their work more efficiently than persons who are not specialists. The bar examiners appointed by the Supreme Court will become specialists in a certain degree. It is very clear that the fact that they have definite duties to perform at definite times will tend to improve the character of the examinations, and indirectly the character of the legal reading prescribed for the examinations. It may be agreed that examinations are a poor means for determining fitness to practice at the bar. While unworthy men may pass reasonably severe examinations, in many cases, and while men of keen intellectual powers are sometimes wholly immoral, yet experience will, it is believed, show that the ability to hold one's self down to a serious and definite task is a fair average test of moral power. It is believed that statistics would show that the great majority of cases of violations of trust and other wrongdoing by attorneys occur among those who have had insufficient preparation for their professional work, and who, if proper standards existed, would never have been permitted to practice law. The Carnegie Foundation has recently called attention to the social waste involved in insufficient preparation for the bar, both with respect to the public who pay for the results of the inefficient, and with respect to the attorney himself who is attempting to discharge duties that he is not qualified to perform. It is possible, of course, to magnify the importance of that in which one has much interest, but it is believed that the present bill is fraught with greater import than many which loom much larger in the public eye. The importance of a properly trained bar, possessed with an intelligent conception of law and legal problems can hardly be overestimated. The future of legislation and of judicial interpretation rests in large measure with the bar. Anything which tends to raise in the slightest degree the general standard of the bar in ability and character is worthy of trial. It is believed the present bill would have that tendency. VI. THE BILL DOES NOT MATERIALLY ADD TO THE EXPENSE OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. per year, would be It was recommended The expense of the commission, $5,000 almost covered by the fees from applicants. by the Finance Committee of the Senate and the Ways and Means Committee of the Assembly. VII. THE BILL WILL EXCLUDE NONE BUT THE LAZY OR INCOMPETENT. The bill does not interfere with the privileges accorded to the various law schools of having their graduates admitted upon motion. It is, therefore, distinctly different from the bill concerning the Board of Medical Examiners, and is not open to the possible objection sometimes made that such bills tend to produce a narrow and selfishly exclusive class. The difficulties which seem to stand in the way of the adoption of a proper system for admission to the bar, can, it is believed, only be removed by a more lively interest on the part of the bar in legal education. So long as a considerable portion of the profession retains the view that a reading of Blackstone, of Greenleaf on Evidence and of the Code of Civil Procedure qualifies one to become a lawyer, it is not to be expected that the layman will take any great interest in efforts to raise the standard of legal efficiency. The present course of reading prescribed for admission was adopted by a rule passed in 1880, and has remained unchanged since that time. Three of the books are practically out of print-Lube's Equity Pleading, Gould's Pleading and Pomeroy's Introduction to Municipal Law. The other books are doubtless classics, and, in their day, presented the best fruits of legal thought, but certainly fall short of indicating to the student of the present day the actual state of the law or its essential history. The fact that the bar and the courts have permitted education to stand still for thirty-three years speaks volumes for the apathy of the profession in the matter of legal education. And yet what lawyer can doubt, upon sober reflection, that the future of his profession, of the law itself, rests ultimately upon an adequate, sound and broad system of legal education? The only practical recommendation that the Section can make at this time, looking towards improvement in this important matter, is to urge the Association again to place itself on record, as it has already done upon three prior occasions, in favor of the bill placing the examination of appli Allen, Carroll, Title Insurance Building, Los Angeles, Ames, Fisher, 711 Pacific Building, San Francisco. Ashley, A. H., Stockton. Aydelotte, Wm. M., 6 Leak Building, Santa Cruz. Bacon, Walter R., 1009 Call Building, San Francisco. Baker, Frederick, 710 International Bank Building, Los Angeles. Barclay, H. A., 602 Frost Building, Los Angeles. Bergerot, Pierre A., French Bank Building, San Francisco. Bell, N. W., Pasadena. Black, A. P., 948 Market street, San Francisco. Bledsoe, Benjamin F., Hon., San Bernardino. Blum, Max, 255 California street, San Francisco. Bolton, A. E., 928 Monadnock Building, San Francisco. Britt, E. W., 1132 Title Insurance Building, Los Angeles. Brittain, F. S., Western Metropolis Bank Building, San Francisco. Butcher, W. P., Santa Barbara. Campbell, E. C., Redlands, San Bernardino. Campbell, Kemper B., 810 California Building, Los Angeles. Carter, Royle A., 191 Forsyth Building, Fresno, P. O. Box 665. Cassin, Chas. M., Santa Cruz. Chandler, Jeff Paul, 1017 Union Oil Building, Los Angeles. Chapman, L. M., 321 Coulter Building, Los Angeles. Chapman, M. C., Oakland. Chapman, Ward, 321 Coulter Building, Los Angeles. Chase, Lucius K., 443 Title Insurance Building, Los Angeles. Clarke, R. M., Hon., San Buena Ventura, Ventura county. Coghlan, John P., 445 Sutter street, San Francisco. Crothers, R. A., Chronicle Building, San Francisco. Cullinan, Eustace, 860 Phelan Building, San Francisco. Cushing, Charles S., San Francisco. Cushing, O. K., First National Bank Building, San Francisco. Daney, Eugene, San Diego. Davis, John F., Humboldt Building, San Francisco. Davis, Wm. R., Oakland. Dearing, Milton M., 207 Land Company Building, Fresno. Deering, Frank P., 14 Montgomery street, San Francisco. Denis, George J., 414 Wilcox Building, Los Angeles. Denman, Wm., Merchants' Exchange Building, San Francisco. Dewhirst, H. T., Redlands. Dillon, R. J., Douglas Building, Los Angeles. Dockweiler, I. B., Douglas Building, Los Angeles. Donahue, Hon. W. H., Court House, Oakland. Doolittle, H. E. Lawyers' Block, San Diego. Dorn, Winfield, 1232 Merchants' Exchange Building, San Francisco. Dozier, Thos. B., First National Bank Building, San Francisco. Drew, A. M. Temple Bar Building, Fresno. Drum, John S., S. F. Savings Union Building, San Francisco. Dunnigan, Harry L., 302 Coulter Building, Los Angeles. Dysert, W. V., 514 Laughlin Building, Los Angeles. |