The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1908. THE PURIFICATION OF THE BAB.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12145, 5 September 1908, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1908. THE PURIFICATION OF THE BAB.

It would be absurd to suppose that the New Zealand Bar, taken as a whole, typifies the perfection of unassailable integrity. There is, doubtless, as large a proportion of "black sheep" among the members of the legal profession as there is among those who follow other occupations, and consequently we must find what consolation we can in the knowledge* that the proportion of dishonesty is inconsiderable in comparison with the generally high standard of public and professional probity. />lfr would certainly appear that so far as our lawyers are concerned we are much bettor off than our American cousins. Leading members of the legal profession of the United States aro just now engaged in a most interesting experiment;. They are attempting no less a task than the purification of American Bar procedure through the medium of a code of legal ethics which they have drawn up, and to which ali American lawyers during the course of this month will be publicly requested to subscribe. Some, of the canons shed a ray of stfange light into the dark recesse-s of American legal customs, and unwittingly reveal the existence of scandalous practices which, let us hope, are peculiar to the American Bar alone. One of the most important canons deals with law coats. It directs lawyers not to overcharge their clients anoY not to determine the amount of their fees on the clients' ability to pay, but on .the actual valuj of the work done, the time and labour expended and- the measure of skill required properly to conduct the cause. These, the uninitiated1 might imagine, have always been the guiding factors of reputable lawyers, in drafting their bills of costs. .The eircumstanoe, however, that the rosforinera found it advisable to specify emphatically such obvious, principles of hpne^ty'lio.hducti suggests that they must have had good grounds for eb doing. ; While assuming the Bar of this Dominion to ba morally superior to the American the fact that the responsible representatives of the latter hare deemed it necessary to take organised action of legal extortion is calculated to give rise to some little uncomfortable speculation among litigants on this side of <the ocean. For instance, as an Australian oontempoiary reminds us, it is of a once prominent Sydney lawyer that the celebrated "verdict" story is related. Some time after winning an important case, which carried a heavy pecuniary judgment, his client called to receive the money. The lawyer met him .with the bland announcement that the costs exactly balanced the amount awarded by the court, and when the mifor^una|e litigant remonstrated, he indignantly exclaimed, "But you got your verdict', "What "more do you want'P" In this aspect of the question the "Age" makes some very interesting comments. "As a matter of fact," it cays,. "so many Australasian litigants do get barren verdicts when they win that wo cannot avoid tho reflection that it would be a good thing for our lawyers to. make a serious study of Canon 12 of the new American code. Nor would they, perhaps, be disadvantages; by paying some a. .ttention to Canon 22. This commands American lawyers, under pain of infamy, to deal fairly and candidly with facts, when presenting their cases, drawing affidavits and ex^ amining witnesses. It forbids them playing devious tricks with their opponents and misleading jarie3 with misquotations, and it sternly prohibits the vicious practices of wilfully" tendering inadmissible evidence so as to isneak in irrelevant and unsupported matter in order to influence juries improperly, and of citing false or over-ruled authorities. We can hardly doubt but that certain of these practices prevail in our courts. It frequently happens that an Australian lawyer is censured by the Bench for attempting to convey misleading suggestions to the jury, for springing surprises on his opponents, for misquoting authorities, and for drawing deductions utterly unwarranted by tho evidence. Not long since an eminent barrister of a neighbouring State in the course of his argument very glibly cited a precedent that seemed perfectly to coincide with the contention ho was seeking to establish. The presiding judge was curious enough to send for the obscure volume of roports from which it was quoted. The lawyer, having given page and paragraph, it should have been quite easy to discover tho case ? . but to the judge's surprise it could not be found. He directed tho advocate's attention to, the phenomenon, and received the witty but impudent reply. I can say, your Honor, is, that if it is not there it ought to be.' This sorb of thing no doubt works its own cure in the end, for, as well be readily no judge would pay much, attention to the pleading of a counseVwho has acquired a reputation for disingenuous smartness. At the same time such conduct deserves the

severest reprobation, for it degrades what should bo a noble and honourable profession. We must not forget that lawyers are not mere money-getters, although they too often forget it themselves. Thej' are a branch of the administration of justice, and they are entrustod by the Constitution with the important duty of aiding in the administration of justice. They are just as much officers of the law as justices, magistrates and policemen, and consequently those of them who permit considerations of self-interest to influence I them and attempt to defeat the ends of justice are traitors to their public trust and thoroughly bad citizens." The most serious charges inferentially levied against the American Bar by its new system of ethics are those which imply the disgraceful prostitution of justice at the bidding of the big puree, and impute the existence of dishonourable relations between American lawyers and American judges and juries. Two separate canons specificallj' and vehemently condemn as ' 'dishonorable and unprofessional" the practice evidently in vogue of paying marked attention and offering unusual hospitality to judges with a view to obtaining special personal favour and of privately discussing with them the merits of pending suits; and they denounce in the strongest terms the equally vicious custom of lawyers fawning upon and flattering juries and privately conversing with the jurors about cases which are actually proceeding. It would be difficut to credit that any Bar would be guilty of such ineffable misconduct if we were not so assured in the plainest terms by the language of the code drawn up by the American lawyers for their own improvement. The canons in question constitute, in effect, a damning indictment of the whole system of judicial administration in America, for they not only admit the prevalence of unprincipled lawyers, but they assume the corruptibility of the Bench and the susceptibility of juries to bribery and subornation. How far this new code of ofchiea will effect the evidently muchneeded reform remains to be seen. It is to be feared, however, that a more drastic remedy will have to be devised before the evils which now make a mockery of justice in the land of the Stars and Stripes will be sensibly diminished. We may be heartily thankful that our judges are above suspicion, 1 and that—whatever lapses may occur on the part of individual lawyers—our whole judicial system is sound and comparatively incorruptible.