Gambar halaman

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 respond. to 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. The re- 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]

(311 II. 66, 142 N. E. 554.) distinct as to cause a contrariety of respondent's conduct was dishonopinion as to whether acts were or orable or unprofessional is the claim were not ethical. It seems, however, that he did not aid in guarding as used by the commissioner, “un- against the admission to the profesethical" is substantially synonymous sion of candidates “unfit or unqualiwith unprofessional, for there was fied because deficient in either moral nothing immoral in conducting the character or education" (Canon 29, quiz courses by respondent. What, Canons of Ethics adopted by the then, characterizes it as unprofes- American and Illinois State Bar sional? It should be borne in mind Associations), and that respondent's that the quiz courses were inde- conduct of quiz courses involved dispendent of, and had no connection loyalty to the law (Canon 32). with, respondent's relations with his What respondent did had no connecclients. His classes were not clients tion with the moral fitness of the who sought his services in the trans- applicant. That is required to be action of business, and he did not determined by a committee on charsolicit clients to become members of acter and fitness appointed by this his classes. He did not pretend to court, and respondent had no conaid members of his classes in their nection with that committee, and preliminary qualification to enable never did anything to influence its them to take the examination. They actions. The charge that respondwere composed of men who had al- ent violated Canon 29 in not aiding ready qualified by preliminary edu- to protect the bar against the admiscation and by study of the law to be sion of applicants deficient in educaadmitted by the board to take the tion we do not think is sustained by examination for admission to the the commissioner's report. As we bar. For ten weeks he conducted a have said, the respondent did not quiz course of instruction or review aid his students in meeting the reof the subjects which the students quirements of Rule 39 either as to had already studied in their law preliminary education of law study, course, and upon which the rule with the exception, above noticed, as of this court required them to be to students who had failed to pass examined, to better prepare them the examination. His classes were for the examination. Respondent composed only of students who had should not and must not advertise previously completed the requireor represent that he can or will fur- ment of the rule to be admitted to nish his students with a question or take the examination. questions which will be used by the No doubt respondent represented board of law examiners in the ex- to his students that such a course as amination of students for admission he conducted would be of great aid to the bar. Such advertising is in enabling them to successfully pass wholly improper. The commission- the examination, and there is no er reports the work respondent was doubt that was the object of the studoing was of the same nature as dents in taking the ten weeks' that carried on by several other per- course under his tuition. Does that sons in Chicago, some of whom are render respondent's conduct unproattorneys at law. What we have fessional to such an extent as to said on the subject of what conduct justify revoking his license to pracis unethical is equally applicable to tise law? It does not appear bewhat is or what is not unprofession- fore this time to have been so real. Where the conduct of an attor- garded by the bar or the courts. ney is such that all right-minded The commissioner reports that people would conclude that it is not other attorneys at law in Chicago honorable, it must necessarily be un- are doing the same kind of work, professional.

and, after a somewhat extensive The grounds upon which counsel investigation, we have been unable for relator base their argument that to find a decision of any court

-conduct prohibited.

upon the question. No one would not claimed respondent's conduct contend that a lawyer should be dis- has been in any sense dishonest, or barred who, instead of opening an immoral, or injurious to the public, office and practising his profession, except, as stated, that he has failed devoted all his time to teaching law. to live up to the standard of Canon Many very able and well-known law- 29. We are unable to say t at yers have done that very thing, and charge has been sustained by ine many well-known lawyers devote a commissioner's report, as we cannot part of their time to teaching in law say the profession or the public has schools. There is this difference in been or will be injuriously affected that kind of teaching and respond by respondent's conduct. ent's teaching: That in law schools No attorney at law should be percovering the period a student is re- mitted to engage or continue in a quired to study law, the object is to course of conduct make the student acquainted with which brings the the fundamental principles of law to profession into disprepare him to practise his profes- repute. It is a vital necessity to the sion, while respondent's course was well-being of society and the admingiven to supplementing the work al- istration of justice that attorneys, ready done by giving the student a who are officials of the court and a ten weeks' review or quiz on the sub- part of our judicial system, should jects he had studied in the law exhibit the most scrupulous care in school, in order to refresh his mem- conducting themselves and their ory and better prepare him to pass business in such manner as will sethe examination for admission to cure and maintain the respect and the bar. A lawyer who has succeed- confidence of the public in the attored in establishing himself in a pay- ney and the profession generally. ing practice of the law might con- The trust and cor filence which must sider it would be beneath his digni- necessarily be reposed in an attorty, or that it would be unprofession- ney by clients who confide to him al in him, to conduct such courses as most intimate secrets and their most respondent conducted, but the views sacred rights require in the attorney

of such a lawyer a high standard and appreciation of Attorney and

cannot be the sole his duty to his clicnts, his profesclient-conducting quiz classes criterion for deter- sion, the courts, and the public. We -unprofessional

mining what is un- feel very little charity for an attor

professional con- ney who is so morally obtuse as not duct. It would not seem strange if to recognize the sacredness of his in some respects the successful law- duties and the necessity for irreyer's ideas of professional conduct proachable conduct in his professhould differ from the ideas of those sion. His failure to live up to the less fortunate. Of course, the ideals requirements for a proper discharge of the lawyer struggling to make of the duties of his office is only a enough to support his family can no little less injurious to the public than more be accepted as the standard the failure of the judge on the bench than those of his more fortunate in the proper conduct and discharge brother. Common sense and a spirit of his official duties. The right to of fairness must, in the absence of practise law is not an absolute right. adjudication, be relied upon for It is a privilege, guidance in determining the ques- which may be re

-right to re

voke license. tion.

voked when the atUnprofessional conduct which torney's misconduct makes him an would justify disbarment must have unfit person to be allowed to hold a an element of immorality or dishon- license to practise. An attorney can

esty, or be of such properly be disbarred only upon -conduct justicharacter as to be in good cause shown,

-right to disbar. violation of private in a judicial prointerests or the public good. It is ceeding. There is here no contro


fying disbarment.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »