Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/747

 706

THE GREEN BAG

ise a powerful instrument for the raising of the whole profession. There has grown up in England during the last few years,- a system by which a body is annually elected by the Bar itself, called the General Council of the Bar which exercises functions not in lieu of but collateral to the ancient Inns of Court not unlike in some respects the American Bar Association. The nearest analogy in England is the Annual Congress of the solicitors connected with the Incor porated Law Society. Now I must premise my brief compari sons of the rules of professional conduct obtaining in England and set forth in the specimen codes placed before the American Bar Association at Portland with these observations. First, I think the consid eration divides itself under two heads, that of rules of advocacy, and that of rules of general professional conduct, although I take them in the order of the projected code. Secondly, I note only divergencies and must in other respects be taken to accept the substance of the rules as common to both countries, and Thirdly, I premise that there does not exist in England anything like so complete a statement of canons of professional conduct as that projected for the United States, either in topics included or in the fulness of dealing with those topics since in England all the rules (with the exception of the provision of the statute of Edward i,) which are reduced to writing, are in the nature of Rcsponsa Prudentum and have no higher formal sanction. Turning now to the codes under exam ination the rules relating to duties of attorneys to courts and judicial officers might be accepted in either country as those fortified by constant usage, and the same observation may be made regarding the bulk of the rules enunciating the duties of attorneys to each other, to clients and the public, save in so far as concern the special rules applicable in England to relations between the two branches of the profession. The rule, however (which is

No. 18 in the projected code), that "news paper advertisements, circulars and business cards tendering professional services to the general puplie are proper" is precisely contrary to that in England. I am bound, however, to recognize that though the rule in England is not in accord with the pro nouncement of the United States code, that the expanse of the spheres of professional activity are so wide in the United States, compared with the restricted areas in Eng land that similar rules could scarcely be enjoined. Regarding Rule 21 the advocate in Eng land never gives evidence on behalf of his client because from time immemorial his mere statement regarding anything which happens in the course of his forensic em ployment is accepted by the Court. Regarding Rule 52 of the projected code which recommends "an explicit understand ing as to compensation for professional services at the outset" this from an English point of view has to be considered in two aspects; the client who instructs his solicitor, rarely makes any agreement as to compen sation which in conveyancing matters is a question of ad valorem scale, and in matters of litigation or other matters outside the scale is a question of items for actual work upon a fixed basis, subject to adjustment on taxation by the proper officer of the Court, who is called the taxing master; so far as the barrister is concerned the solicitor who instructs him and through whom alone the barrister receives his instructions marks on the brief or instructions the proper fee and the brief or instructions are then accepted or rejected by the barrister without bar gain. Rule 53 of the projected code regarding suing a client for a fee may in England as we have said only be applicable to a solicitor who may recover in an action the proper amount of his charge, the barrister in no case suing for his fees, which are strictly in the nature of pure honoraria. I have pointed out the effect of this upon a