any such college or institution, and entirely independent of any course of studies theretofore pursued by such applicants, and solely for the purpose of preparing such applicants to meet the bar examinations as the same are given from time to time by said board of law examiners, limiting the instruction and quizzing to the topics set out in rule 39 of this honorable court, upon which it is prescribed applicants for admission to the bar 'must sustain a satisfactory examination.'

"4. Respondent is possessed of marked ability and shrewdness, and has acquired great proficiency in said work. He has for many years carefully studied each and every bar examination and each and every question propounded by the said board of law examiners at the examinations conducted by it, and has collected, codified, arranged, and systemized such questions. He has given careful attention and study to most, if not all, the published quiz books, and questionnaires on the topics mentioned in said rule, has studied the statutes and decisions of the supreme court of Illinois and the leading textbooks on the subjects mentioned in the rule, and has prepared a list of over five thousand questions and answers relating to the topics set out in said rule 39, which said list he uses in his said quiz course. He divides his students into classes, and nearly always has from 100 to 115 students taking his quiz course prior to each examination.

"5. Respondent claims that approximately 85 to 95 per cent of the applicants taking his quiz course are successful in the succeeding examination, while the usual percentage of success of applicants not so prepared is much less. He also claims that by his method he is able to assure his students that they will have from twenty to forty-five questions, verbatim or in principle, to be asked at the succeeding examination. There are seventy questions asked on each examination. This claim is made by respondent

to induce applicants to take his quiz course. In effect, respondent guarantees to furnish verbatim questions and answers in from 28 to 64 per cent of the succeeding examination. On the hearing before the committee on grievances of the Chicago Bar Association said respondent testified that he had, prior to each examination, from twenty-five to forty-five verbatim questions-'that is, exactly verbatim'-of the questions that were given out at said examination. Lest there should be a possible misunderstanding, the commissioner thinks it only fair to the respondent to say here that, both on the hearing before the said grievance committee and before the commissioner, the respondent denied that he ever saw any of the actual questions put at the examination prior to the examination, except once, in 1918, under circumstances hereinafter described. On the hearing before the commissioner the respondent modified his claim, and insisted that he always had twenty questions verbatim and twenty-five more in principle prior to each examination, and did not claim before the commissioner that he had prior to each examination from twenty-five to forty-five questions verbatim.

"6. Respondent always tells his students at the beginning of his quiz classes that it is necessary for them to work hard and to keep order. Respondent secures students for his quiz classes from the established schools and colleges of law in Chicago and in other states, on circulars and representations, either by letter or in person or by agents, of the thoroughness and value of his quiz course and of his great success in preparing students for the bar examinations. His advertising and solicitation of students are systematic and extensive.

"7. Respondent regularly conducts said quiz classes for ten successive weeks prior to each examination, charging $25 to each student taking the same, and including therein for five days just

"Findings:

"(1) While respondent has made a point of meeting and becoming acquainted with various members of the state board of law examiners, undoubtedly with the idea of advancing his business interests, he has not committed any impropriety, by word or act, in connection with such acquaintanceship. While respondent has employed one member of said board living in a county other than Cook county to draft a cross bill in a proceeding pending in Cook county, this employment, as disclosed by the evidence, was in no way improper, and the fee of $200 paid by respondent for such service was a reasonable fee, and was paid upon an oral bill rendered to respondent. Respondent did not represent to said member that he was conducting a law school, and did not induce said member to attend in the office of respondent and deliver a lecture on a legal subject,

and said member did not deliver a lecture on a legal subject to the persons who were taking the said quiz course from respondent.

"(2) In reference to many of the past examinations conducted by said board, rumors have been cir

culated, both in Chicago and Springfield, that certain applicants for admission have been able to procure in advance the questions to be put by said board. Respondent has not been active in permitting and encouraging the circulation of said rumors. At the July, 1921, examination, through an error, printed lists of questions to be submitted to the applicants at a session to be held twenty-four hours or more later were inadvertently passed among a part of the applicants by a monitor or some person working under the direction of the member of the board in charge thereof. The mistake was immediately discovered, and due effort was made to have the lists so given out by mistake returned. A copy of one of said lists appeared thereafter on the same day in the office of respondent. Respondent did not use it in any way in preparing the persons taking his quiz for the examination thereafter conducted. On the contrary, he advised his students to have nothing to do with it. He did not post the questions in his office. He did not call the attention of the board to said situation, and testified. that he did not do so because he knew that the board would not use the questions thus inadvertently given out in advance. In the year 1918 a list of part of the questions used on an examination in that year was obtained by some person unknown, prior to the examination. Respondent was asked by some of his students about some of these questions. He saw a typewritten copy of eighteen or nineteen questions which he was told was taken from said list. They were in an adjoining office. When respondent learned the circumstances he refused to have anything to do with the questions. the questions. Respondent told a member of said board of the fact that this list of questions had gotten out prior to the examination.

"(3) In regard to the charge that prior to the December, 1920, examination conducted by said board in Chicago, respondent had procured,'

or claimed to have procured, advance information of the questions, or some of them, to be put by said board to the applicants at said examination, I find that respondent did not procure, or claim to have procured, advance information of said questions or any of them. It is It is charged in the information that respondent offered to sell information in advance of the said examination, relating to the questions to be asked at such examination, to one Robert J. Shaw, upon the payment to the respondent by said Shaw of the sum of $300. This charge is refuted by a preponderance of the evidence, and I find that said respondent did not offer to sell advance information of the questions to be put at the December, 1920, examination to said Robert J. Shaw, and that respondent did not have such advance information. It is further charged that respondent offered to sell to C. Lysle Smith, without direct cost to him, advance information of the questions, or some of them, to be put by said board to the applicants on the December, 1920, examination. There is no evidence whatever to sustain this charge. I find that respondent did not offer to sell such information to said C. Lysle Smith. Respondent has never procured or attempted to procure advance information of questions to be put on any examination by said board of law examiners, and has never sold or offered to sell to any applicant or possible applicant any advance information, or any questions that were to be put or supposed to be put at a bar examination, in advance of such examination.

"(4) Where the applicants taking respondent's quiz courses have previously failed in taking the bar examinations, it has been the custom of respondent, on behalf of such of the applicants taking his course as were lacking in the time of study required to enable them to take another examination, to furnish the necessary proofs to make up such time by submitting to said board affidavits that said applicants had

studied during the requisite time under his personal tuition for the period of time covered by the attendance. on such quiz classes so conducted by respondent. In the opinion of the commissioner these affidavits constituted evasions of the rule of this honorable court. Taking respondent's quiz course is not, in the opinion of the commissioner, the study of law contemplated by the rule.

"9. There have been from time to time repeated rumors that the questions given out at bar examinations held by said board have been procured or given out in advance of the date of such examination. These rumors are not sustained by the evidence, except that in the case of the examination held in 1918, mentioned above, someone procured in advance of the examination, without the knowledge of the board, a list of part of the questions. Except for this there is no evidence that any questions, or set of questions, were obtained prior to any bar examination by any applicant or other person, and no evidence at all that the respondent was a party to or had anything to do with obtaining any such questions. There is no evidence that the state board of bar examiners are at fault in any way. On the contrary, the evidence shows that said state board conduct examinations faithfully and fairly, and take every precaution to prevent any leaks and to prevent any person whatsoever obtaining any advance information of the questions that are to be asked at the examination.

"Conclusions.

"10. While quiz courses and quiz books are of value in preparing students for examinations, and cannot be reasonably objected to when not abused, the quiz courses of respondent are calculated solely to 'cram' the students for imminent examination, Iwith definitions and brief statements of legal principles, unsupported by training in reasoning, or the analysis of facts, or the application of law to facts. Success under

the respondent is a man of marked ability; that he has given careful attention to the study of the statutes, the decisions of this court, and to the leading textbooks on the subjects the applicant is required by rule 39 to pass a satisfactory examination upon, and has prepared a list of over five thousand questions and answers relating to the subjects required by the rule. Respondent has from 100 to 115 students at a time, and divides them into classes. It appears to us that his students are studying the law on the very subjects required by the rule of this court, and, according to the commissioner's report, under a competent instructor. His methods of instruction may and do differ from those of a standard law school, but the student was required to study law and be quizzed on the different subjects studied, by and under the personal tuition and direction of respondent.

While the testimony taken by the commissioner has not been filed in this court, his report shows four members of the board of law examiners testified as witnesses, and it is apparent from the commissioner's report the members of the board, or at least some of them, were personally acquainted with respondent, and had knowledge that he was conducting a quiz course. As there is no proof or claim made that the board ever objected to or questioned the proofs made for applicants who were his students, the board, it would seem, did not consider what respondent was doing was an evasion of the rule. If the board thought it was an evasion it should not have accepted such proofs, but, having accepted them as a compliance with the rule, it cannot be said respondent should be disbarred for that reason, and the commissioner does not recommend that he be disbarred on that account. The requirement of the rule is that the student diligently pursue the study of law for the full period between examinations, and it is the duty of the board to demand proof of such study before admitting the appli

cant to a second or subsequent examination. But there is no proof that respondent has aided in the evasion of the rule.

Just

The commissioner's conclusion is that conducting quiz courses is unethical and unprofessional, and that this court should not disbar him, but should require him forthwith to desist from conducting them. how this court can compel respondent to desist is not pointed out by the commissioner or by counsel. We have the power to disbar a lawyer permanently or for a definite period, but there is nothing in the nature of the business of conducting a quiz course in law, or any other legitimate subject, that would authorize this court to enter an order that an attorney conducting such course should forthwith stop it. Perhaps what the commissioner had in mind was that the court could make an order that respondent be suspended for a short time for the purpose of giving him an opportunity to retire from the business of conducting quiz courses, and, if he failed to do so, at the expiration of the time for which he was suspended he then be disbarred. Without stopping to consider the power of the court to do that, so far as we know, it has never made such an order, and counsel for neither side suggest that any such order be made.

Counsel for relator argue that the commissioner's report justifies the disbarment of respondent, and his counsel argue that it shows no justifiable grounds for disbarment. The ground upon which respondent's disbarment is asked is that his conduct in holding quiz courses is unethical and unprofessional. Exactly what acts or conduct measure up to the standard of being ethical are not always easy to define. Lexicographers define the term as meaning the philosophy of morals or pertaining to morals. Some conduct may be of a character to show such moral obtuseness that all would say it was immoral or unethical, but the division line that distinguishes the ethical and unethical is often so in