Page images

medical experts are men so vile and lacking in conscience that they will make untrue statements. Being a member of the profession, I think I can make that statement without treading on any toes.

“In behalf of the people of Lewiston, I hope that you will have a pleasant time while you are our city and that you will enjoy yourselves so much that you will want to come here for another convention."

Chairman Leeper:

“I am acting in the place of Judge Rice, President of this body, and, therefore, I will present to you a statement which he has sent to me and which he would have made had he been here. Before I do this, however, I should like to read two or three letters and telegrams. This is a letter from Commissioner N. D. Jackson, of St. Anthony.

“Gentlemen: I regret very much my inability to attend the annual meeting at Lewiston. I trust and believe that the meeting will be of lasting benefit to the Bar and assist in safeguarding and preserving the integrity of the profession.

"Former Chief Justice J. F. Ailshie wires from Detriot, Mich., "My best wishes for a successful meeting of the Bar Association. It is hoped that your deliberations may prove beneficial to both the profession and the public and that you may also be able to point out a way for the more expeditious disposal of litigation.'

"Senator Borah will be here tomorrow. He has been in touch with Chester H. Rowell concerning the speech Mr. Rowell was scheduled to make here and I have just received the following wire from Mr. Rowell: 'Berkeley, Calif., Leaving Shasta Limited tonight. Can just make it by Saturday night with only fifteen minutes margin to catch connection at Portland.' "I will now proceed with Judge Rice's address:

ADDRESS OF JUDGE RICE At this, the first meeting of the State Bar held under the authority of the new law, it would seem to be most profitable to consider the changed situation brought by this law, and take a look into the future.

The law itself was passed at the 1923 session of the legislature. Under its provisions the three commissioners were elected. They met in due season and organized, but because the law did not make an appropriation the commission was without funds and found it impossible to function. The law having been passed, it received an emphatic endorsement at the hands of the 1925 legislature. At this session an appropriation bill was passed, making the funds already collected and those to be collected in the future available for the purpose of the commission. The law was further amended in other particulars and changed so that it is apparently in good working shape.

This law makes radical changes in the status of the practicing lawyers of the state and also enlarges the field of activities of the Bar materially and provides machinery by which these enlarged activities may be carried on. As to practicing lawyers in the state the law, in effect, requires compulsory membership in what we may term the State Bar Association. In this particular the sanctions of the law are adequate. It requires every lawyer practicing his profession to obtain a license, which of itself makes him a member of the association. The law not only makes it a misdemeanor to practice law without a license or to hold one's self out as a lawyer without a license, but also provides means for disciplining, by the Bar itself, those who refuse.

Undoubtedly, it will be necessary in time to obtain a clear definition as to what it means to practice law or to hold one's self out as a lawyer. So far but one case has been litigated in the courts involving this question. This case grew out of advertisements inserted in the Boise newspapers by one who had never been admitted to practice. The case was tried to a jury and the defendant found not guilty. Other cases will no doubt arise from time to time until finally a decision will be obtained clearly defining what it means to practice law.

The enlarged activities of the bar of the state as exercised through its commission fall into three divisions:

First: The Bar Commission has charge and, subject to the supervision of the Supreme Court, control over the matter of admissions to practice law.

Second: Prescribe rules of conduct for practicing lawyers.
Third: Takes charge of all disciplinary proceedings.

In all lines of its activity the Commission is subject to supervision and control by the Supreme Court.

As soon as a meeting could be arranged after the adjournment of the last session of the legislature, the Commission met at Boise and, pursuant to authority given in the law, adopted a set of rules for the government of its activities. A copy of these rules has been placed in the hands of every lawyer of the state. I hope that each one has taken the time to read the rules and that they have been found to be appropriate and complete. It was no smali task to formulate this set of rules. It is hoped that they will be found simple and practicable and of such character that they will not require much amendment in the future. The rules were submitted to the Supreme Court and with some slight changes were approved. Probably you have all noted the disagreement of two of the members of the court as to the rules in one particular, namely as to the power of the Bar Commission to require members of the bar to assume and execute the duties which may be delegated to them or incur liability to disciplinary proceedings. These duties, it will be observed, have to do mainly with disciplinary proceedings. As the Commission understands the law, ample authority is contained therein for the rules as they stand. In justification it should be remembered that the members of your commission receive no compensation. They perform a public service and give their time, attention and efforts solely for the benefit of the state in general and of the legal profession in particular. The regular duties connected with their office require a considerable amount of time. Much more, I imagine, than most of you realize. The state is large in extent, which fact would render it difficult and expensive if the commission should undertake to personally investigate all charges and conduct all hearings. Not only that, but it is only fair to assume that all the honorable members of the bar are equally interested with the members of the commission in maintaining proper standards of practice and will be perfectly willing to render necessary assistance when called upon.

Thus far the commission has conducted one examination of candidates for admission to the bar. The result was somewhat surprising: Of twelve candidates, who took the examination, four were found eligible for admission and eight were rejected. Those desiring admission to the bar must meet the required standard of moral fitness and educational qualificationis.

Under the heading of prescribing rules for the conduct of lawyers, you will observe that the commission has not prescribed any elaborate code of ethics. In addition to the statutory code of ethics, which, by the way, is fairly complete in itself, a few of what were deemed to be the more important rules of conduct were prescribed. It may be that this part of the commission's work will in time need further elaboration. It is believed that it is the intent of the law that violations of the rules of conduct are cause for discipline.

Several disciplinary proceedings were authorized by the commission at its last meeting. I do not have reports as to what has been done, but, unless the matters are proceeding in due course, the commission will undoubtedly have to use pressure and require that these matters be proceeded with promptly.

The effect of the new organization upon the bar of the state ought to be beneficial. It should lead to greater professional interest and be conducive to higher standards in the profession. That the meetings of the bar must be held in the various sections of the state is, in my judgment, a wise provision. This will bring the work of the bar association closer to the lawyers of the different sections of the state and will have a tendency to advance the objects which the association should foster.

Again a united bar and an interested and enthusiastic bar should be able to increase in prestige and in influence in the state. The bar of the state is entitled to become a recognized power in certain directions. The bar almost without exception stands for the supremacy of the law. As a body it should stand for the enforcement of the law and become a pronounced factor in support of law and order. Its members are particularly interested in the machinery by which the state seeks to administer justice. The bar should have a voice, indeed, in my judgment, almost a controlling voice, in the selection of the judicial officers of the state.

Its counsel should be sought in the legislative halls of the state and especially so in regard to matters of practice and procedure. I suggest that there should be a standing legislative committee whose duty it shall be not only to examine into and propose amendments and changes in procedural law, but also be in a position to advise and counsel with regard to the legal effect of any proposed legislation whenever its counsel should be sought. For concrete examples, I shall refer to two measures enacted by the last legislature.

First, the amendment to the statute permitting general denials. I do not know what is the concensus of opinion among the members of the bar of the state as to whether this change was desirable or not, but having been made, it desirable that it be properly used. I venture to suggest that no high class lawyer will make use of the general denial with the hope of tripping his adversary or catching him unprepared to furnish proof of formal allegations. If it is here to stay, and it probably is, the bar association can foster a general understanding that proper professional practice requires the defendant's attorney to admit allegations of the complaint which are manifestly true and of which it would impose hardship upon the opposing side to be required to furnish proof. Personally I am not opposed to the general denial if it is properly used. On the contrary, it tends to simplify pleadings. It would be well to consider the advisability of urging the passage of a statute similar in purport to one in the state of Utah, which provides that allegations of the execution of written instruments and endorsements thereon, of the existence of a corporation or partnership, or of any appointment or authority, or the correctness of any account duly verified by the affidavit of the party shall be taken as true unless the denial be specific and be verified. There might be added to such a statute also allegations of the existence of the marriage relation and perhaps other formal allegations which would occur to those drafting such a bill.

I refer also to Chapter 62 of the 1925 Session Laws providing for probate procedure in the case of what is called non-intervention wills. The bill as passed, it appears to me, is likely to be fruitful of litigation and productive of defective titles. I most respectfully suggest that the bar association could render valuable assistance in criticising and formulating such measures.

I have aimed in this address to be suggestive only. The matters I have touched upon should interest all the members of the bar of the state. I trust that other matters of greater importance and interest may be suggested and called up for discussion at this meeting of the association.

A letter from Oscar W. Worthwine, Commander of the American Legion, Department of Idaho, was read as follows:

“The Idaho Department of the American Legion takes pleasure in sending greetings to the Idaho State Bar in convention assembled at Lewiston, Idaho.

“Many of the ideals and purposes of the two organizations are identical; and the Legion is not unmindful of the great service rendered during the war by your members in connection with the various war-time agencies, particularly in the selective draft; nor have we forgotten the many services rendered without thought of compensation by you to our comrades since the war. We wish you God speed in the great work of Americanization you have undertaken; in this we pledge you our heartiest cooperation.

"Feeling confident that your deliberations will be guided by the high ideals of patriotism and service which furnished the foundation of your great profession, and assuring you of our good wishes and high regard, we are very sincerely,

“AMERICAN LEGION. “Department of Idaho, Oscar Worthwine, Commander.” The chairman called upon the Secretary, Sam S. Griffin, of Boise, to make his annual report.


The Idaho State Bar and its Board of Commissioners were organized pursuant to an Act of the Legislature passed at the 1923 Session (Chapter 212, 1923 Session Laws) presented to that body by a committee appointed at a general meeting of the Idaho State Bar Association.

The Idaho State Bar Association had considered the matter at two general meetings, the first held in 1921 at Boise, when a committee, previously appointed, reported on the necessity and desirability of such an act, and approved in general the so-called Goodwin Act, which had, after several years of study and reports to the American Bar Association, been formulated and recommended by a committee of the latter association headed by Mr. Goodwin.

Pursuant to the Act the Clerk of the Supreme Court appointed Karl Paine and Sam S. Griffin, members of the Boise Bar, to assist in conducting an election for commissioners; notices calling for nominations were sent to the Bar, and thereafter ballots prepared and sent to the Bar. Upon canvass of the vote, John C. Rice of Caldwell, Idaho, was elected commissioner for the Western Division, N. D. Jackson of St. Anthony, Idaho, for the Eastern Division, and Robert D. Leeper, of Lewiston, Idaho, for the Northern Division.

The Board met and organized August 7, 1923, at Boise, all commissioners present. They drew lots for length of terms, resulting in a term of one year for Rice, two years for Jackson and three years for Leeper. Rice was elected president, Jackson vice president, and Sam S. Griffin, secretary.

At the first meeting discussion was had of rules to be formulated for admission, ethics, discipline and general rules, and the work of drafting such rules apportioned. Regular dates for meeting of the Commission were fixed for the first Mondays of March, June, September and December, the place to be designated by the president. Discussion was also had of disciplinary matters then pending before the voluntary Idaho State Bar Association, the chairman of the State Grievance committee reporting thereon.

Prior to the meeting of the Board the State Auditor had announced that he did not consider that the act carried an appropriation. Question had also been raised as to the constitutionality of the act. It was considered advisable to have the matter passed upon, and to do so Commissioner Jackson presented his claim against the state for expenses in attending the Board meeting. This claim being refused by the auditor, original application was made to the Supreme Court for Writ of Mandate, Frank Wyman, B. W. Oppenheim and Sam S. Griffin of Boise, and H. B. Thompson of Pocatello, representing Mr. Jackson, the Attorney General representing the Auditor, and briefs being filed by Mr. Goodwin, chairman of the American Bar Association committee, as amicus curiae; all constitutional matters were thoroughly briefed and argued and submitted December 10, 1923; decision was rendered July 3, 1924, three judges holding that there was no appropriation, two holding there was; two holding the act unconstitutional, two holding it constitutional, and one expressing no opinion cn constitutionality (Jackson v. Gallet, 39 Idaho 382, 228 Pac. 1068). Petition for rehearing was filed but denied, the original opinion, however, being somewhat modified, and as modified appearing in the official report. Final determination of the case was not until early September, 1924.

Pending the litigation the Board was not, of course, in a position to go forward, although, correspondence and routine matters in the secretary's office were attended to in considerable volume. The Court during this period and until June, 1925, conducted examinations for admission.

The Board again met at Boise November 24th, 1924, and formulated tentative rules for presentation to the Supreme Court, the Board, of course, not being in a position to act under the statute until rules were approved by that body. Discussion was also had of the necessity and desirability of amendment of the statute to eliminate inconsistencies, provide an appropriation, clarify provisions, and obviate objections raised in the litigation above mentioned.

Amendments to the organization act were presented to the legislature and passed at the 1925 session (Chapters 89, 90, 1925 Session Laws.) Thereafter the Board again met, April 6, 7 and 8, 1925, at Boise.

Meantime there had been gathered together rules of conduct, admission and discipline from practically all the higher courts and bar associations of the United States. Alabama had organized under a

« PreviousContinue »