« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
the suit was commenced, and the se- stated that it had been ruled othercurity was thereby restored, equity wise in New Jersey by previous cases. would relieve against the forfeiture And see Greene v. Richards (1923) in case the failure was not wilful, but 244 Mass. 495, 139 N. E. 175.
G. S. G.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS EX REL. CHICAGO BAR
Illinois Supreme Court - February 19, 1924.
(311 Ill. 66, 142 N. E. 554.) Attorney and client -- conducting quiz classes – unprofessional conduct.
1. It is not unprofessional for a member of the bar to conduct quiz classes to prepare law students who have completed the required course of study for their bar examinations.
[See note on this question beginning on page 748.] - conduct justifying disbarment. - right to revoke license.
2. Unprofessional conduct which 4. The right to practise law is merewill justify disbarment of an attor- ly a privilege, which may be revoked ney must have an element of immor- for conduct rendering one unfit to hold ality or dishonesty, or be of such char- a license to practise. acter as to be in violation of private [See 2 R. C. L. 940; 1 R. C. L. Supp. interests or the public good.
664.] [See 2 R. C. L. 1089; 1 R. C. L. Supp. - right to disbar. 698.]
5. An attorney can be disbarred - conduct prohibited.
only for good cause shown in a judi3. No attorney at law should be cial proceeding. permitted to engage in or continue in [See 2 R. C. L. 1103; 1 R. C. L. Supp. a course of conduct which brings the 703.] profession into disrepute.
(Dunn and Cartwright, JJ., dissent.)
INFORMATION to disbar an attorney at law. Rule discharged.
Messrs. John Long Fogle, William cago Bar Asso. v. Gilbert, 263 Ill. 85, H. Sexton, and Frank E. Harkness, 104 N. E. 1082. for relator:
Messrs. Joseph A. Weil, A. D. Cloud, Respondent, being a lawyer with Thomas J. Symmes, John A. Rose, and positive duties toward the profession, McKinney, Lynde, & Grear for reand as such lawyer being an officer of spondent. the court charged with the duty of aiding in the administration of justice,
Farmer, Ch. J., delivered the opinand having well-defined duties toward
ion of the court: the public, which obligations he is
This is an information to disbar shown to have wholly or partially dis- Lewis F. Baker, an attorney at law regarded, should be deprived of the of the city of Chicago, who was adlicense given him by the court.
mitted as an attorney at law in 1913, Re Mosness, 39 Wis. 509, 20 Am.
and has since that time been enRep. 55; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 18 L. ed. 366; People ex rel.
gaged in the practice of his profesChicago Bar Asso. v. Berezniak, 292 Ill. sion in the city of Chicago. The in305, 127 N. E. 36; People ex rel. Chi- formation charges, generally, that respondent devotes most of his time circulation of the rumors; that at to instructing and preparing appli- the July, 1921, examination, through cants for admission to the bar for an error, the printed questions to taking the examination before the be used in the examination twentyboard of law examiners; that for four hours later by the board were that purpose he conducts quiz
conducts quiz inadvertently passed among part of classes, for which the members pay the applicants, but the mistake was him a substantial sum of money, the immediately discovered and efforts object being to prepare students, by made to have the lists returned; intensive work under the respond that one of the lists, or a typewritten ent's supervision, to successfully copy of it, appeared the same day pass the examination for admission in respondent's office, and was used to the bar, without regard to the by him in preparing his students for student's previous training, or the examination; that respondent knowledge of or acquaintance with did not, as it was his duty to do, the fundamental principles of law; notify the board of the matter and that respondent is not connected endeavor to keep it from the knowl. with any college or institution giv- edge of his students, but posted the ing instruction to students, but con- list in a conspicuous place in his ofducts his classes for the purpose of fice, open to the view of the appli"cramming" applicants to pass the cants for admission to the bar. bar examination, and the instruction Count 3 charges that prior to the given by him is limited to the sub- December, 1920, examination, which jects mentioned in rule 39 of this was held by the board in Chicago, court.
the respondent procured or claimed The first count specifically charges to have procured advance informarespondent has for many years made tion of the questions, or some of a practice of cultivating the ac- them, which would be put to the apquaintance of members of the board plicants for admission to the bar, of law examiners for the purpose and offered to sell the information to of procuring their good will and to Robert J. Shaw for $300, and to C. use the same in aid of his business; Lysle Smith without cost to him, to that he employed a member of the be paid for by Smith's friends. board to draft a cross bill in a suit Count 4 charges that it was the pending, and paid him $200 for his practice of respondent, on behalf of services; that respondent told said applicants taking his course, who member he was conducting a law were lacking in the time of study reschool, and induced the member to quired to be shown by proofs to deliver a lecture in respondent's of- qualify them for taking the examfice to students who were taking his ination, to furnish them affidavits quiz course, for the purpose of caus- that the applicants had studied, ing the students to believe respond- under his personal tuition, the ent could aid them in passing the ex- period of time covered by their atamination; that respondent had tendance on respondent's classes, visited two members of the board and this, it is alleged, was an evadistant from Chicago for the pur- sion of the rule of this court. pose of cultivating their acquaint- After answer filed to the informaance, in the hope that it would aid tion the cause was referred to a comhim in his business.
missioner, who heard the evidence The second count charges that in and filed his report, and the case the past there had been rumors that is submitted for decision on the certain applicants for admission to commissioner's report, without exthe bar had been able to procure, in ceptions having been filed by either advance, questions to be put by party. People ex rel. Chicago Bar the board of law examiners in an Asso. v. Gilbert, 263 Ill. 85, 104 N. examination, and that respondent E. 1082. had been active in encouraging the The report of the commissioner is (311 Ill. 66, 142 N. E. 554.) of considerable length, but the im- and counselor at law of the state of portance of the questions presented Illinois under the then-existing rules is such that we think it should be of this honorable court, and his set out in full. It is as follows: name entered on the roll of attor
“I, the undersigned, Roswell B. neys as an attorney and counselor Mason, a master in chancery of the at law of the state of Illinois. Said circuit court of Cook county and Lewis F. Baker is now, and has been special commissioner of the supreme since said date, engaged in the praccourt of the state of Illinois, do now tice of law in the city of Chicago, in respectively submit the following re- said state of Illinois. port pursuant to an order of this “2. Since the year 1913 said rehonorable court entered June 20, spondent has devoted his time al1922:
most exclusively to the business of "Commencing on July 6, 1922, and instructing and preparing appliat various dates thereafter, down cants for admission to the bar for to and including December 4, 1922, their respective examinations by the I was attended at my office, room state board of law examiners of the 1602 Marquette Building, Chicago, state of Illinois. The method folIllinois, by Mr. John L. Fogle on be- lowed by respondent in carrying on half of the relator, and Mr. Thomas such business is to conduct what is J. Symmes on behalf of the respond- known as a 'quiz class' previous to ent. I have taken herein the deposi- the respective examinations, upon tions of Elmer H. Bielfeldt, Lysle the payment of $25 from each apSmith, Robert J. Shaw, William B. plicant enrolled in the class. Said Hale, Albert Watson, A. M. Rose, respondent admits to his quiz class James W. Watts, Lewis F. Baker, only those who have complied with Albert J. Ginsberg, John K. Moni- the rule of the supreme court in han, Samuel L. Golan, John J. reference to preliminary education Whiteside, Morris Fisher, and Al- and previous law study. Said work bert Woods. Prior to the examina- of said respondent is conducted by tion of said witnesses they were him solely for the revenue accruing each and all duly sworn by me ac- to the said respondent therefrom, cording to law, and their said deposi- and is of the same nature as that tions constitute, together with the carried on by several other quiz instruments in writing described in masters in Chicago, some of whom and attached to said depositions, are said to be attorneys at law. the entire transcript of evidence “3. The sole object of such quizin this cause, Said transcript of class work and instruction is to inevidence is in my possession, and I sure, as far as may be, that the apam ready to certify it up to this plicant taking such course, without honorable court in case either of the regard to his actual knowledge and parties hereto shall so desire. This acquaintance with the fundamentals case was argued before me by coun- of the law, shall, by reason of such sel for the parties in interest in intensive work under the guidance the month of February, 1923. I of said respondent, be enabled suchave neither asked nor received any cessfully to meet the test of said compensation whatsoever for taking board of law examiners at the subsuch evidence and making this re- sequent regular examination for adport. From all the evidence offered mission to the bar. Said respondand received before me, being the ent is connected with no college or evidence included in said transcript institution giving training to such of evidence and no other evidence, students, and is not engaged in conI find:
ducting quiz classes covering spe"1. The respondent, Lewis F. cifically or generally any course in Baker, was by the supreme court of any college or institution of learnIllinois, on or about October 8, 1913, ing. Said respondent conducts said admitted and licensed as an attorney quiz course entirely independent of any such college or institution, and to induce applicants to take his quiz entirely independent of any course course. In effect, respondent guarof studies theretofore pursued by antees to furnish verbatim questions such applicants, and solely for the and answers in from 28 to 64 per purpose of preparing such appli- cent of the succeeding examination. cants to meet the bar examinations On the hearing before the committee as the same are given from time to on grievances of the Chicago Bar time by said board of law examiners, Association said respondent testifieul limiting the instruction and quizzing that he had, prior to each examinato the topics set out in rule 39 of tion, from twenty-five to forty-five this honorable court, upon which it verbatim questions—that is, exactis prescribed applicants for admis- ly verbatim'—of the questions that sion to the bar 'must sustain a sat- were given out at said examinaisfactory examination.'
tion. Lest there should be a pos: "4. Respondent is possessed of sible misunderstanding, the commismarked ability and shrewdness, and sioner thinks it only fair to the has acquired great proficiency in respondent to say here that, both said work. He has for many years on the hearing before the said carefully studied each and every grievance committee and before the bar examination and each and every commissioner, the respondent dequestion propounded by the said nied that he ever saw any of the board of law examiners at the ex- actual questions put at the examiaminations conducted by it, and has nation prior to the examination, collected, codified, arranged, and except once, in 1918, under cirsystemized such questions. He has cumstances hereinafter described. given careful attention and study to On the hearing before the commismost, if not all, the published quiz sicner the respondent modified his books, and questionnaires on the claim, and insisted that he always topics mentioned in said rule, has had twenty questions verbatim and studied the statutes and decisions of twenty-five more in principle prior the supreme court of Illinois and the to each examination, and did not leading textbooks on the subjects claim before the commissioner that mentioned in the rule, and has pre- he had prior to each examination pared a list of over five thousand from twenty-five to forty-five quesquestions and answers relating to tions verbatim. the topics set out in said rule 39, “6. Respondent always tells his which said list he uses in his said students at the beginning of his quiz course. He divides his students quiz classes that it is necessary for into classes, and nearly always has them to work hard and to keep orfrom 100 to 115 students taking his der. Respondent secures students quiz course prior to each examina- for his quiz classes from the estabtion.
lished schools and colleges of law "5. Respondent claims that ap- in Chicago and in other states, on proximately 85 to 95 per cent of the circulars and representations, either applicants taking his quiz course by letter or in person or by agents, are successful in the succeeding of the thoroughness and value of his examination, while the usual per- quiz course and of his great success centage of success of applicants not in preparing students for the bar exso prepared is much less. He also aminations. His advertising and claims that by his method he is able solicitation of students are systemto assure his students that they will atic and extensive. have from twenty to forty-five “7. Respondent regularly conquestions, verbatim or in principle, ducts said quiz classes for ten sucto be asked at the succeeding exam- cessive weeks prior to each exination. There are seventy ques- amination, charging $25 to each tions asked on each examination. student taking the same, and inThis claim is made by respondent cluding therein for five days just (311 Ill. 66, 142 N. E. 554.) previcus to and during the exami- culated, both in Chicago and Springnations a special intensive or re- field, that certain applicants for view quiz covering the whole course. admission have been able to proFor this he makes no additional cure in advance the questions to be charge to his regular students who put by said board. Respondent has have paid $25, but charges out- not been active in permitting and siders who have come in for the encouraging the circulation of said special intensive quiz only $10. rumors. At the July, 1921, examHis quiz course consists of ques- ination, through an error, printed tions that he has compiled cov- lists of questions to be submitted to ering the entire subject. He usually the applicants at a session to be held has twenty basic or fundamental twenty-four hours or more later questions on each subject, which, were inadvertently passed among with the answers thereto, he urges a part of the applicants by a monieach of his students to learn. He tor or some person working under goes with his students to the place the direction of the member of the where the examination is held and board in charge thereof. The misanswers questions that the students take was immediately discovered, may put to him between the sessions and due effort was made to have the of the board of examiners.
lists so given out by mistake re“8. In regard to the charges of turned. A copy of one of said specific acts of misconduct against lists appeared thereafter on the respondent, I make the following same day in the office of respondent.
Respondent did not use it in any "Findings:
way in preparing the persons tak“(1) While respondent has made ing his quiz for the examination a point of meeting and becoming ac
thereafter conducted. On the conquainted with various members of
trary, he advised his students to the state board of law examiners, have nothing to do with it. He did undoubtedly with the idea of ad- not post the questions in his office. vancing his business interests, he
He did not call the attention of the has not committed any impropriety,
board to said situation, and testified by word or act, in connection with
that he did not do so because he such acquaintanceship. While re
knew that the board would not spondent has employed one member use the questions thus inadvertently of said board living in a county given out in advance. In the year other than Cook county to draft a
1918 a list of part of the questions cross bill in a proceeding pending
used on an examination in that year in Cook county, this employment,
was obtained by some person unas disclosed by the evidence, was
known, prior to the examination. in no way improper, and the fee of Respondent was asked by some of $200 paid by respondent for such
his students about some of these service was a reasonable fee, and questions. He saw a typewritten was paid upon an oral bill rendered copy of eighteen or nineteen questo respondent. Respondent did not
tions which he was told was taken represent to said member that he from said list. They were in an adwas conducting a law school, and joining office. When respondent did not induce said member to at
learned the circumstances he retend in the office of respondent and
fused to have anything to do with deliver a lecture on a legal subject,
the questions. Respondent told a and said member did not deliver a
member of said board of the fact lecture on a legal subject to the that this list of questions had gotten persons who were taking the said out prior to the examination. quiz course from respondent.
“(3) In regard to the charge that “(2) In reference to many of the prior to the December, 1920, exampast examinations conducted by ination conducted by said board in said board, rumors have been cir- Chicago, respondent had procured,