Practical Experience in Controlling Members of the Bar Control of the Bar

Abstract

PRESENT methods of control of members of the Bar as a general thing are rather unsatisfactory. Many lawyers resent being called to account by a Bar Association of which they do not happen to be members. The fact that they are not members of the Association does not necessarily mean that they are not in every way perfectly reputable members of the Bar. In some States membership in the State Bar Association is compulsory. Making membership in the Bar Association compulsory prevents a certain amount of ill feeling that is bound to exist where lawyers are divided into two classes, those who belong and those who do not. In these States therefore the Committee that is investigating the conduct of a member of the Bar is investigating one of its own members. Lawyers usually have a feeling that to be called before the Bar Association Committee is a reflection on their standing. The fact that a vast majority of complaints are groundless is clear proof that it is no reflection whatever on the standing of these lawyers. By far the best p'an of Bar discipline that has come to the writer's attention is that now in effect in the State of Washington. The State is divided into several districts. The Supreme Court appoints a Committee of Inquiry, the members of the committee serve without pay and their function is similar to that of a Master in Equity. Complaints before this committee are investigated and presented by a paid secretary, one for each district. The advantage of this system is to adjust th proceedings both in form and substance to the nature of an inquiry by the Court into the conduct of its officers and then place more directly in the hands of the Court any disciplinary measures. This system is being strongly advocated in Massachusetts bu the Legislature has not yet seen fit to adopt it. For some strange reason the Courts themselves have seldom taken the initial step in disciplining members of the Bar. This step is generally taken by State or County Bar Associations, who act through a Grievance Committee, or some such similar body. These committees hear complaints against lawyers who practice within their jurisdiction. Where there is good reason to believe a lawyer guilty of a breach of professional ethics the matter will be called to the attention of the Court by means of a formal petition. In large cities, such as New York and Boston, the Grievance Committee has a paid secretary, but as a general rule members and secretaries of these committees receive no compensation. Once a complaint is before the Court the presiding justice, if he does not dismiss the complaint as not proved, will publicly reprimand the lawyer complained of, or suspend him from practice for a definite period of time, or disbar him from practice altogether. Disbarment will almost invariably result in his being unable to practice law in any other State in the union.