Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/318

 A CODE OF LEGAL ETHICS

231

and members of the Bar are indicated by the officer and a gentleman, when the interest following canons: of the service demands it. It is the professional duty of judicial I am also aware that a statute should be officers to so conduct themselves in all of sufficiently specific to point out the offense, their judicial functions as to win the approval before one can be disciplined under it for of right-minded men, including members of an offense, for instance, under the medical the Bar, for their high ethical standards. laws in Kentucky, where the statute did not It is the duty of members of the Bar to define "grossly unprofessional conduct of a conduct themselves respectfully to judicial character likely to deceive or defraud the officers, and to observe their judgments public," the court held that as the statute until properly reviewed or suspended, but a did not advise the practitioner what was member of the Bar is under no obligation unprofessional conduct, he could not know to overlook acts of judicial malfeasance out ingly or intentionally be guilty of it; that of a false respect for the office. if the legislature desired to declare for what ii. The qualities desirable in a judge are acts or conduct a license should be revoked, courtesy, affability, even temper, patience, it might do so and vest in some tribunal the conscientiousness, legal learning, sound right to investigate the charges; but that the sense and judgment, the moral courage to Kentucky statute was deficient in that it meet an issue squarely, an impartial mind prescribed no rule to govern the conduct of and unquestionable probity in all of his the profession, or board in adjudgingits effect.1 judicial acts. On the other hand, in Missouri it was said It has been suggested to the writer, by that, as the legislature had not defined un one eminent authority on the subject, to professional or dishonorable conduct, those whom he submitted its substance, that the words must be understood to mean such objection to such a code is that moral pre conduct as would in common judgment be cepts cannot be enforced by statutory pro deemed unprofessional or dishonorable.* It would seem, however, that the above vision; but the answer appeared to be that where the enforcement of such precepts is code sufficiently indicates the principles of essential to the proper administration of action, to define unprofessional or dis justice, and the precepts are made to apply honorable conduct of the practitioner. only to members of the Bar, this forms the NEW YORK, N.Y., April, 1908. basis for a proper exception to the general v. Murphy, 23 Ky. Law R. 750; 54 rule, on the same theory' by which officers L. 1R.Matthews A. 415; 63 S. W. Rep. 785. of the army and navy may be dismissed or 2 State ex rel Hathaway v. State Board of disciplined for conduct unbecoming an Health. 103 Mo. 22.