The Idaho State Bar is organized in conformity to and functions under, statutes of the State of Idaho, found as Chapter 211, Session Laws of 1923, and Chapters 89 and 90, Session Laws of 1925. Rules for Admission of Attorneys, Conduct of Attorneys, Disciplinary Proceedings, and General Rules, as adopted by the Board of Commissioners and approved by the Supreme Court of Idaho, are published in pamphlet form and may be had upon application to the secretary. COMMISSIONERS OF THE IDAHO STATE BAR JOHN C. RICE, Caldwell, Western Division........ OFFICERS OF THE IDAHO STATE BAR JOHN C. RICE, Caldwell, President.... N. D. JACKSON, St. Anthony, Vice President. SAM S. GRIFFIN, Boise, Secretary... COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION B. W. Oppenheim, Boise, Chairman Clency St. Clair, Idaho Falls B. S. Varian, Weiser James R. Bothwell, Twin Falls OFFICES OF THE COMMISSION 36 Federal Building, Boise, Idaho 1923-25 .1923-25 1923-26 1925-27 ..1925-28 1923-25 1923-25 .1925-26 1925-26 1923 ANNOUNCEMENTS Attorney's License Fee-$5.00, payable annually prior to July 1, to the State Treasurer, Boise, Idaho. Meetings of the Bar-The Western and Northern Divisions will hold Division meetings in 1926 at times and places to be fixed, respectively, by Commissioners Martin and Leeper. Annual meeting of the Idaho State Bar will be held at Pocatello, Idaho, at a time to be announced later. An election of a commissioner for the Northern Division will be held in 1926. REPORT OF ANNUAL MEETING OF THE IDAHO STATE BAR Lewiston, Idaho, Sept. 3, 4, 5 1925 The Idaho State Bar was called to order at 10 o'clock a. m. on September 3rd, 1925, at the Lewis-Clark hotel by R. D. Leeper, of Lewiston, vice president, in the absence of John C. Rice, President of the Idaho State Bar, who was unable to attend. The chairman announced that, for the reason that many members enroute to the meeting would not arrive until the afternoon, the regular program for the morning session would be postponed until the afternoon. A canvassing board to canvass the election returns for commisioners of the eastern and western divisions, was named at this time by the chairman. The board consisted of Jay Parrish, Boise, P. E. Stookey, Lewiston, and R. H. Johnson, Boise. Mr. Leeper stated that some embarrassment had been occasioned to local members in charge of arrangements for the convention, by reason of the fact that Chester H. Rowell, of San Francisco, scheduled to speak on the "World Court", had telegraphed that he would not attend unless he could meet Senator William E. Borah in debate on this question. The chairman stated that there had been no mention of a debate in the negotiations with Mr. Rowell and that he regretted to announce Mr. Rowell's refusal to come to Lewiston. John T. Becker announced that a banquet for members of the association only would be held on the following evening, followed by a dance from 9 to 12, and that music would be provided in the lobby of the hotel each afternoon from 1:30 o'clock until 2 o'clock. The meeting recessed until 2 o'clock in the afternoon. AFTERNOON SESSION, SEPTEMBER 3 The Vice President introduced Dr. E. G. Braddock, mayor of Lewiston, who delivered an address of welcome. Dr. Braddock said: "Mr. Chairman, Members of the Bar of the State of Idaho, Ladies and Gentlemen: I hope that during your visit here you will give some time and thought to the great wave of crime that is sweeping our country and gnawing at our foundations. It is through you that we can find out the cause for this trouble and arrive at some treatment that will cure and eliminate this great evil. You attorneys must do this the same as a doctor determines the cause of a disease before he can effect a cure. I do not think that the doctor should be given such an active part in the investigation of crime. Too often these so-called 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 in 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. 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 small 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 qualifications. 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 is 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 mar |
