Page images
PDF
EPUB

"There is a widespread impression in the public mind that the members of the legal profession have not, through their organizations contributed either to the betterment of legal education or to the improvement of justice to that extent which society has the right to expect."

That lawyers have not done as much as they ought may be admitted; but it cannot with truth be said that they have not repeatedly and adequately initiated, and have not frequently procured, important reforms.

There are in the United States four hundred bar associations, led in influence by the American Bar Association. These are state, county and city associations. Although considerably less than half of the lawyers of the country join these associations, a movement is gaining headway for the organization of the entire bar into a body corporate with compulsory membership. Lawyers are now officers of the court, but there is no method by which they can by voluntary organization be made efficient in procuring united action. Lawyers of the highest standing and influence have, however, individually and through existing associations, striven for years to introduce substantial improvements in every phase of the law and its administration. The records of such organizations as the American Bar Association, the Bar Association of the City of New York, the New York County Lawyers' Association, the Chicago Bar Association and the New York State Bar Association, will afford ample proof of this. But such efforts do not constitute a general and systematic plan of reform; they are more or less sporadic. And since the bar, as a group, has little political potentiality, its efforts frequently fail; and it is not always itself a unit. Many lawyers (and

they are frequently found in legislative bodies) oppose reforms because changes will require them to unlearn procedure which has sometimes given them advantages not enjoyed by those less skilled in anachronistic subtleties; and they rightly think that with a change they will cease to be oracles of the ancient order. In England the same obstacle was encountered, for old lawyers there described the efforts of law reformers in the Nineteenth Century as "breaking down the bulwarks of the constitution." But the bar of this country as a whole encourages movements for reform, even if all its members do not actively participate in them; and the situation in this respect is constantly improving. Moreover, law reform generally receives the support of American judges. The Chief Justice and the members of the Supreme Court are constantly urging upon Congress useful and substantial reforms in the procedure of the federal courts; and the chief judges of almost all of the highest state courts throughout the country are co-operating in the important work of the American Law Institute. Experienced and enlightened judges in all of our courts generally favor relaxing rules of evidence and technical methods of procedure; and rarely has a judge the hardihood to oppose a reform proposed by an influential body of lawyers. There is in this respect a marked difference between our situation and that in England during the seventy-five years when measures of law reform were being enacted there. In 1851 when Lord Brougham's Act removed the disability of parties to testify as witnesses, Lord Campbell said (Journal, June 19th, 1921), that the reform "is opposed, as might be expected, by the Lord Chancellor. If it passes it will create a new era in the administration of justice in this country. I sup

port it, and I think it will be carried, although all the common law judges, with one exception, are hostile to it." It is not strange that interference with institutions of great antiquity should evoke the opposition of many of those who understand them and have been instruments in their administration; and in any project for the reform of our law that kind of obstacle must be anticipated.

The American Law Institute is a voluntary organization incorporated in 1923. It has undertaken a complete restatement of the law and it is calculated that the work will require not less than ten years. Its members are prominent lawyers, judges and law professors throughout the country; indeed, it may with truth be said that no body of lawyers, judges and teachers of law, so numerous and representative ever before united in any project relating to the administration of justice. The Institute has an endowment which is adequate to complete the work it has undertaken in the most thorough and scientific manner. That work is predicated

upon a condition briefly summarized thus:

"Two chief defects in American law are its uncertainty and its complexity. These defects cause useless litigation, prevent resort to the courts to enforce just rights, make it often impossible to advise persons of their rights, and when litigation is begun create delay and expense."

Already under the direction of the most skilled and experienced lawyers and law professors, the work has substantially progressed. But several things are to be noted:

1. The work of the Institute is the restatement of

existing law. It is not a revision of the prevailing rules of law. But commentaries will accompany the restatement which will lay the foundation for such revision.

2. The Institute will not deal with procedure though a restatement will, no doubt, lead to reforms in the adjective law. A Committee of the Institute on this point said:

"Any restatement in this field which did not seek improvement based on careful observation of the operation of existing methods would therefore not be worthy of the effort of an organization created to fulfill the obligation of the legal profession to improve the law."

3. The restatement will have no governmental authority. But the disinterestedness, ability and experience of those engaged upon the work will undoubtedly command respect for their conclusions. If their formulation does not result in a codification it will undoubtedly have almost controlling influence with courts throughout the country.

Here, then, is a movement of the first importance in the history of jurisprudence. That the Institute appreciates not only the difficulty of the work but also the fundamental conditions on which its success depends is manifest from the following statements in the report of the Committee already referred to:

"A mere academic restatement of the law, whatever its form, will not be sufficient for the undertaking. To fulfill its objects the restatement must have authority greater than that now accorded to any legal treatise, an authority more nearly on a par with that accorded the decisions of the courts. To develop among judges and lawyers the feeling that the restatement has this high degree of authority the work of making the re

statement must from its inception be generally recognized as a work carried on by the legal profession, in fulfillment of an obligation to the American people, to promote the certainty and simplicity of the law, and its adaptation to the needs of life. If this feeling be developed to any considerable degree, it will not only give to the bench and the bar a sense of professional responsibility for the character of the work which will go far to insure its excellence, but it will also secure for the work as it is published the position necessary to enable it to accomplish the purposes of its creation." And that the responsibility of those undertaking the work is fully realized is clear from the further statement:

"As Mr. Root has ably and clearly pointed out, the work of the restatement and the clarification and the simplification of our law is a work that the American public have a right to demand of the profession as a whole and is separate and distinct from the duty that the lawyer owes to the court, or that the citizen owes to his country. This being a professional duty, we must, as the report states, consider such questions as are most immediately and pressingly necessary for the welfare of our system of jurisprudence. I think it is entirely clear that when anything goes wrong with the courts, when there are defects manifested in the administration of justice, the American people look to the legal profession to devise a method of correction and to have things go in the right way."

In New York state a movement is well under way for a revision of its laws. A Commission was created in 1923 "to examine the statutes and judicial decisions of the State of New York; to investigate any defects it may find in the present law and in its administration; and to recommend such changes as are necessary, to modify or eliminate antiquated and inequitable rules of law and

« PreviousContinue »