Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

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 testified 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 sioner 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 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

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 questions, 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.) previous 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. “Findings:

Respondent did not use it in any

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, or claimed to have procured, ad- studied during the requisite time unvance information of the questions, der his personal tuition for the perior some of them, to be put by said od of time covered by the attendance board to the applicants at said ex- on such quiz classes so conducted by amination, I find that respondent did respondent. In the opinion of the not procure, or claim to have pro- commissioner these affidavits consticured, advance information of said tuted evasions of the rule of this questions or any of them. It is honorable court. Taking respondcharged in the information that re- ent's quiz course is not, in the opinspondent offered to sell information ion of the commissioner, the study in advance of the said examination, of law contemplated by the rule. relating to the questions to be asked “9. There have been from time to at such examination, to one Robert time repeated rumors that the quesJ. Shaw, upon the payment to the tions given out at bar examinations respondent by said Shaw of the sum held by said board have been proof $300. This charge is refuted by cured or given out in advance of the a preponderance of the evidence, date of such examination. These and I find that said respondent did rumors are not sustained by the evinot offer to sell advance information dence, except that in the case of the of the questions to be put at the De- examination held in 1918, mentioned cember, 1920, examination to said above, someone procured in advance Robert J. Shaw, and that respondent of the examination, without the did not have such advance informa- knowledge of the board, a list of tion. It is further charged that re- part of the questions. Except for spondent offered to sell to C. Lysle this there is no evidence that any Smith, without direct cost to him, questions, or set of questions, were advance information of the ques- obtained prior to any bar examinations, or some of them, to be put by tion by any applicant or other persaid board to the applicants on son, and no evidence at all that the December, 1920, examination. the respondent was a party to or There is no evidence whatever to had anything to do with obtainsustain this charge. I find that re- ing any such questions. There is spondent did not offer to sell such no evidence that the state board information to said C. Lysle Smith. of bar examiners are at fault in Respondent has never procured or any way. On the contrary, the attempted to procure advance infor- evidence shows that said state board mation of questions to be put on any conduct examinations faithfully and examination by said board of law fairly, and take every precaution to examiners, and has never sold or of- prevent any leaks and to prevent any fered to sell to any applicant or pos- person whatsoever obtaining any sible applicant any advance infor- advance information of the quesmation, or any questions that were tions that are to be asked at the exto be put or supposed to be put at amination. a bar examination, in advance of

"Conclusions. such examination. (4) Where the applicants tak

“10. While quiz courses and quiz ing respondent's quiz courses have

books are of value in preparing stupreviously failed in taking the bar

dents for examinations, and cannot examinations, it has been the custom be reasonably objected to when not of respondent, on behalf of such of abused, the quiz courses of respondthe applicants taking his course as ent are calculated solely to 'cram' the were lacking in the time of study re- students for imminent examination, quired to enable them to take an- with definitions and brief stateother examination, to furnish the ments of legal principles, unsupnecessary proofs to make up such ported by training in reasoning, or time by submitting to said board the analysis of facts, or the applicaaffidavits that said applicants had tion of law to facts. Success under (311 Nil. 66, 142 N. E. 554.) respondent's system is purely a feat from all the specific charges made of memory. The work of respond- in the information. The commissionent, as hereinbefore set out, results er's conclusion is that respondent's in his students passing the examina- conduct in holding quiz courses is tions without regard to the question unethical and unprofessional, but he whether they are or are not fitted by reports that would not warrant his experience, training, and study to disbarment. The commissioner's be admitted to the bar, and largely recommendation is that this court on the applicant's ability temporari- require respondent to forth with dely to memorize, verbatim, questions sist from giving quiz courses to apand answers given him by the re- plicants for admission to the bar. spondent. This results in a lower- Although some specific charges of ing of the standard of admission to dishonest or fraudulent conduct the bar.

were made in the information, there "11. The object of the examina- was no proof to sustain them. There tions conducted by the state board was nothing unfair or fraudulent in of law examiners is not to create an respondent's conduct of his quiz obstacle to admission to the bar, in course, or in his relations with his surmounting which an intensive students. He accepted none except study or memorization of the char- those who were qualified by prelimacter hereinbefore described should inary education and previous study be the best preparation, but they of law to be permitted by the board are for the purpose of ascertaining of law examiners to take the examwhether applicants who have the re- ination. The only assistance he quired schooling and training have, gave any of them in meeting the rein the course of their legal educa- quirements of the rule entitling tion, achieved that degree of efficien- them to be admitted to take the excy which enables the board and the amination was to those who had court to say by their due admission failed to satisfactorily pass the exand enrolment that as attorneys amination. Under rule 39, a rejected they are to be trusted with the lives, applicant cannot be again admitted liberty, honor, and property of the to take the examination until one citizens of Illinois.

examination (two, if a third or "12. The respondent professes to fourth rejection) has intervened aftbe sincerely convinced of the pro

er such rejection, and such an appriety of his conduct in kolding the plicant shall file with the board proof quiz courses described. All the com- that he has diligently pursued the missioner can say is that the re- study of law during the period subspondent is an exceptionally intelli- quent to the prior examination. Regent man and ought to know better. spondent furnished the proof for

"13. In the opinion of the com- such students that they had studied missioner the conduct of the re- law for the time they were members spondent in holding the quiz courses

of his class under his personal tuidescribed above is unethical and un- tion. There is no intimation that professional.

respondent made any false affida“14. While in the opinion of the vits. The only question raised on commissioner the evidence does not that branch of the case by the comwarrant a recommendation by the missioner's report is his conclusion commissioner that respondent be that a student taking respondent's disbarred, the commissioner recom- quiz course was not studying law mends that respondent be required within the contemplation of the rule by this honorable court to desist of this court, and such was an evaforthwith from giving quiz courses sion of the rule. This would be true to applicants for admission to the if the applicant pursued his studies bar."

for the ten weeks, only. For the It will be seen the commissioner time it covers, however, it conforms completely exonerates respondent to the rule. The commissioner finds the respondent is a man of marked cant to a second or subsequent exability; that he has given careful at- amination. But there is no proof tention to the study of the statutes, that respondent has aided in the the decisions of this court, and to evasion of the rule. the leading textbooks on the subjects The commissioner's conclusion is the applicant is required by rule 39 that conducting quiz courses is unto pass a satisfactory examination ethical and unprofessional, and that upon, and has prepared a list of over this court should not disbar him, but five thousand questions and answers should require him forthwith to derelating to the subjects required by sist from conducting them. Just the rule. Respondent has from 100 how this court can compel respondto 115 students at a time, and divides ent to desist is not pointed out by them into classes. It appears to us the commissioner or by counsel. We that his students are studying the have the power to disbar a lawyer law on the very subjects required by permanently or for a definite period, the rule of this court, and, according but there is nothing in the nature of to the commissioner's report, under the business of conducting a quiz a competent instructor. His meth- course in law, or any other legitiods of instruction may and do differ mate subject, that would authorize from those of a standard law school, this court to enter an order that an but the student was required to attorney conducting such course study law and be quizzed on the dif- should forthwith stop it. Perhaps ferent subjects studied, by and un- what the commissioner had in mind der the personal tuition and direc- was that the court could make an tion of respondent.

order that respondent be suspended While the testimony taken by the for a short time for the purpose of commissioner has not been filed in giving him an opportunity to retire this court, his report shows four from the business of conducting members of the board of law ex- quiz courses, and, if he failed to do aminers testified as witnesses, and so, at the expiration of the time for it is apparent from the commission- which he was suspended he then be er's report the members of the disbarred. Without stopping to board, or at least some of them, were consider the power of the court to personally acquainted with respond do that, so far as we know, it has ent, and had knowledge that he was never made such an order, and counconducting a quiz course. As there sel for neither side suggest that any is no proof or claim made that the such order be made. board ever objected to or questioned Counsel for relator argue that the the proofs made for applicants who commissioner's report justifies the were his students, the board, it disbarment of respondent, and his would seem, did not consider what counsel argue that it shows no justirespondent was doing was an eva- fiable grounds for disbarment. The sion of the rule. If the board ground upon which respondent's thought it was an evasion it should disbarment is asked is that his connot have accepted such proofs, but, duct in holding quiz courses is unhaving accepted them as a compli- ethical and unprofessional. Exactly ance with the rule, it cannot be said what acts or conduct measure up to respondent should be disbarred for the standard of being ethical are not that reason, and the commissioner always easy to define. Lexicogradoes not recommend that he be dis- phers define the term as meaning the barred on that account.

philosophy of morals or pertaining quirement of the rule is that the to morals. Some conduct may be of student diligently pursue the study a character to show such moral obof law for the full period between tuseness that all would say it was examinations, and it is the duty of immoral or unethical, but the divithe board to demand proof of such sion line that distinguishes the study before admitting the appli- ethical and unethical is often so in

[ocr errors]

The re

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »