Page images
PDF
EPUB

Notes and Personals.

We publish in this number another article by Mr. Charles F. Carusi, Dean of the National University School of Law, Washington, D. C. In publishing articles on the Case System of instruction, and on other subjects relating to legal education, we wish it understood we do not necessarily agree with the statements or approve the opinions advanced by the authors. The subject-matter of Mr. Carusi's article is of special interest and importance to all law school men, and further discussion along the line is invited. The American Law School Review is not published for the benefit of any particular class of law schools, nor for the advancement of any special method or system of legal instruction. Its columns are open for the purpose of publication to any one interested in the subject of Legal Education who may have something to offer to the teaching profession in the form of an article pertaining to law school work or admission to the bar. -Alfred F. Mason, Editor.

Commenting on the Canons of Ethics recommended at the American Bar Association for adoption by the Committee on Legal Ethics, the Outlook said:

Laws will not make a community virtuous, nor will canons of professional ethics make dishonorable men honorable. Nevertheless, in a democratic community, good laws help to raise and to strengthen the standard of social virtue, and canons of professional ethics similarly tend to raise and to strengthen the standard of professional honor. There will always be hypocrites among ministers, quacks among doctors, and pettifoggers among lawyers, which is an added reason why the honorable members of these professions should disown, and as far as possible discourage, all dishonorable practices. The thirty-two canons of professional ethics proposed in a preliminary report to the American Bar Association by its Committee are less a set of rules for the guidance of professional practice than a well-ordered statement of principles which have long been recognized and acted on by those members of the bar who possess their own self-respect and the respect of their fellows. Leaving the profession to look in their professional journals for these rules, we here desire to give a layman's especial indorsement to two of them. We have no question that a lawyer "may undertake with propriety the defense of a person accused of a crime, although he knows or believes him guilty," and for the reason stated in the rule that the public welfare requires that no person should be punished for a crime unless, by due process of law, his guilt has been established. The defense of Czolgosz, accused of the murder of President McKinley, illustrates both the justice of the principle and a right application of it. But to defend a client accused of breaking the law is one matter; to advise a client how he can break the law with impunity is quite another matter. Lawyers who would not think of counseling a burglar how he could break into a bank and escape with his plunder have not hesitated to counsel their client how he can violate laws

for the regulation of corporations and still be immune. To such is to be commended the sentence: "The office of attorney does not permit, much less docs it demand, for any client, violation of law or any manner of fraud or chicanery."

The following comment was made by the Louisville Courier Journal:

The real question concerning which people differ is how far a lawyer may go in the defense of a client's cause. It is often said that a lawyer's oath compels him to do the best he can for his client. The fact is, he takes no such oath. The committee of the Bar Association deprecates the idea so often put forward that it is the duty of a lawyer to do whatever may enable him to win his client's case. committee says it is steadfastly to be borne in mind that the lawyer's trust is to be discharged within and not without the bounds of the law.

The

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

The new president of the American Bar Association, Mr. Frederick W. Lehmann, was born in Germany February 28, 1853, but came to this country in early childhood. He first lived in Cincinnati, where he attended the common schools. He later removed to Indiana and finally completed his education at Taber College, in southwestern Iowa, from which he graduated in 1873. During his college course he had studied law in the office of J. L. Mitchell, in Forrest county, Iowa, where he first practiced. His early practice also included Nebraska City, just across the river in Nebraska. In 1876 he moved to Des Moines, where in December, 1879, he married Miss Nora Stark. The following year he went to St. Louis, Missouri, to become general attorney of the Wabash Railroad. continued in this position till June, 1895, when the firm of Boyle, Priest & Lehmann was formed, in which his seniors were Wilbur F. Boyle, who formerly had been circuit judge in the city of St. Louis, and Henry S. Priest, who had been judge of the United States District Court. This frm continued

He

till 1905, when Mr. Lehmann retired to form with his son Sears the firm of Lehmann & Lehmann, of which another son, Frederick W. Lehmann is now a member. Mr. Lel mann in 1907 received from Missouri State University the degree of LL. D. He has been president of the St. Louis Bar Associa tion, and during the last year was president of the General Council of the American Bar Association.

During the eighteen years that Mr. Lehmann has lived in St. Louis he has become distinguished, not only in his profession, in which he has achieved a standing in the first rank of a very able bar, but also as a pul lic spirited citizen of high ideals and honest and pure purposes. He was a director of and one of the leading spirits who made the great Louisiana Purchase Exposition possi ble, and as Chairman of the Committee of the Board of Ethnology and on International Congresses of Arts and Sciences, Includ ing the Universal Congress of Lawyers and Jurists, held in September, 1904, under the joint auspices of the Exposition and of the American Bar Association, he not only ren dered signal service, but attained noteworthy

success.

As a lawyer Mr. Lehmann has achlered more than local renown. In the trial of cases at nisi prius he depends upon a fair presenta tion of the facts and an honest, but earnest, appeal to the jury for the right. In the higher courts his briefs are clear, concise, and convincing statements of the proposition he maintains, supported by a keen and honest logic which compels attention and convic tion. It may be safely predicted that Mr. Lehmann will rank high in the list of distinguished men who have been presidents of the American Bar Association.

[ocr errors]

The Department of Law of the Universi ty of Michigan opened September 29, 1908, with an attendance practically the same as last year. The enrollment at the present time indicates a substantial gain in the first year class, which will be over 300 in number. The total enrollment for the year, including the summer session, will doubtless be nearly 900 students.

The Faculty remains the same as last year, excepting that an instructor has been added in the person of Mr. Ralph W. Aigler, a recent graduate of the Department. Mr. Alg. ler will be employed principally in the work in Conveyancing. This is one of the practi cal courses of the Department, and to it la given the predominant energy of two mem. bers of the Faculty. The student has prac tical work, under the direction of the teachers in charge, in the preparation of the or dinary papers that the practicing lawyer has to prepare, such as deeds, leases, con. tracts, articles of incorporation, partnership articles, wills, etc.

The work of the Practice Court, which is

probably more thoroughly developed in this Department than in any other law department in the country, goes on this year as usual, excepting that added preliminary work in the way of special criticisms of pleading is required of the student.

Prof. Roger W. Cooley is now giving his course of instruction to the members of the senior class upon the Use of the Law Library. This is Mr. Cooley's third visit to the University for the purpose of giving this instruction, and both Faculty and students feel that his work is of great value. Mr. Cooley is thoroughly familiar with law books and knows how to use them and he has exceptional gifts as an instructor which enable him to excite genuine enthusiasm for the work on the part of the students. For the practical work of the course the class is divided into small sections and the instruction is very largely individual.

The combined literary-law course by the taking of which the student can complete the literary course and the law course in six years instead of seven years is each year growing in popularity in the University of Michigan. The number of students electIng the course this year is ten per cent. more than ever before. Students taking this course spend their entire time during the first three years in work in the Literary Department; the fourth year is given almost entirely to work in the Law Department twenty-four hours of credit thus obtained being counted toward the literary degree; the fifth and sixth years are spent entirely in the Law Department. The course has always been a rigorous one, but has been made more severe by the recent action of the committee having in charge students taking this course by which it is impossible for any one to enter upon the work of the fourth year in the Law Department whose work in the Literary Department has not been above the average.

In 1842 St. Louis University, located at St. Louis, Mo., opened a department of law, and placed the same in practically the sole charge of Judge Richard A. Buckner of Kentucky, an able jurist and distinguished politiclan. Five years later, Judge Buckner died, and there being no one of equal eminence available to take his place the law school was buried with him. This fall the St. Louis University agains opens a law department. Though not definitely decided upon until early summer, though the faculty was not even tentatively chosen until August, and the prospectus came from the printer only in September, the school opened on October 12th, with an enrollment of one hundred students. The Law Institute, as it is called, occupies the magnificient old Morrisson Mansion at 2740 Locust St., St. Louis, which has been remodeled and completely and handsomely equipped for the purpose of the school. Both a day and a night school will be conducted. The

faculty is made up largely of members of the St. Louis bench and bar, who have entered with enthusiasm into the work. Among the resident instructors are John B. Reno and Sherman Steele, late of the Notre Dame University Law School. A special effort is to be made to train the students in pleading and practice. A practice court has been established, complete in every detail, and with the exceptional advantage that at every sitting it will be presided over by a "real judge"; two members of the St. Louis Circuit Court alternating each week as judge of the practice court.

The New York Law School established some 17 years ago in order to perpetuate in New York City the Dwight System of Legal Education has recently published an interesting list of names of prominent men who have studied law by that method either under Professor Dwight himself at the Columbia College Law School or at the New York Law School under Dean Chase and other associates of Professor Dwight. Following are some of the names included in the list: Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States.

Charles E. Hughes, Governor of New York. Oscar S. Straus, member of President's Cabinet.

James R. Garfield, member of President's Cabinet.

George P. Wetmore, United States Senator. John Kean, United States Senator.

E. Henry Lacombe, United States Circuit Court Judge.

Le Baron B. Colt, United States Circuit Court Judge.

Alexander T. McGill, Chancellor of New Jersey.

Morgan J. O'Brien, Justice of Supreme Court of New York.

Joseph A. Burr, Justice of Supreme Court of New York.

Mitchell L. Erlanger, Justice of Supreme Court of New York.

George L. Ingraham, Justice of Supreme Court of New York.

John R. Nicholson, Chancellor of Delaware. L. Bradford Prince, Chief Justice of New Mexico.

William H. DeWitt, Judge of Supreme Court of Montana.

Theodore E. Hancock, Attorney General of New York.

Julius M. Mayer, Attorney General of New York.

Perry Belmont, Member of Congress from New York.

Martin W. Littleton, Borough President, New York City.

William T. Jerome, District Attorney of New York.

Francis P. Garvan, Assistant District Attorney of New York.

Hamilton Fish, Member of Assembly of New York.

Hugh J. Grant, Ex-Mayor of New York City. Ethelbert D. Warfield, President of Lafayette College, Pa.

Munroe Smith, Professor in Columbia Univer sity, New York City.

Edmund Wetmore, member of Board of Overseers. Harvard University.

Louis Marshall, counselor at law, New York

City.

« PreviousContinue »