Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/84

 The Meeting of the New York State Bar Association identical with that which a sub-committee of the New York County Bar Association's Committee on Legal Ethics will shortly report to that body, namely:— The lawyer is entitled to reasonable compensation. This may be contracted for with his client, but under no circumstances should advantage be taken of his ignorance or necessity. Contingent fees are permis sible if the client desires such form of compensation, but they should always be reasonable in amount. Canon 5, paragraph 1, of the American Bar Association's Code was adopted only after the defeat of an amendment for which Mr. Everett P. Wheeler was mainly responsible, as follows:— It is the right of a lawyer to undertake the defense of a person accused of crime, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt ot the accused; otherwise inno cent persons, victims only of suspicious circumstances, might be denied proper defense. Having undertaken such defense, the lawyer is bound, by all fair and honorable means, to present every defense that the law of the land permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law. Mr. Wheeler had desired to add to the above the words:— But if the accused person be convicted, after a fair trial, and the lawyer is convinced of his guilt, the lawyer should not attempt further to save from proper punishment the guilty person except by the authority or direction of the court. Paragraph 2 of this canon was adopted with the addition of the following words: "He should avoid oppression and injustice of any kind whatsoever." The New York State Bar Association thus added its name to the list of seventeen or more state bar associations which have adopted codes practically conforming, in most cases, to the Code of the American Bar Association, virtually the only changes being the slight ones recommended by the com mittee. The moral effect of the adoption of the Code was powerfully reinforced by the thoughtful and inspiring observations made by the retiring President, Mr. Stetson, in his annual address. In his discussion of "The Lawyer's Livelihood," this eminent and re spected lawyer, whose leadership at the bar and experience in corporation practice on an extensive scale lent such weight to his words, brought to the subject a sanity and discrimi nation that produced a radically different im pression from that of commonplace or dull moralizing. He indicated with helpful per spicacity and good sense where the duty of the lawyer lies in those moments when he is perplexed by conflicting obligations. REFORMS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Mr. Everett P. Wheeler's strong plea for reform in judicial procedure did not stand

67

alone as an expression of private opinion, for after a general discussion it was referred to the Committee on Law Reform. The subject of "The Regulation of the Introduction of Medical Expert Testimony" was referred a year ago to the consideration of a committee consisting of one member from each judicial district in conference with a similar committee of the State Medical Society. Judge Clearwater, chairman of the committee, laid stress on the fact that eighteen physicians, representing the allopathic.homceopathic and eclectic schools, agreed with nine of the lawyers on the report as presented. "Recent excavations," he said, "unearthed an ancient scroll which showed that the doctors of Chaldea disagreed over the disease of their monarch. They have disagreed ever since, and I am presenting the first instance of an agreement by them on anything." What these doctors had agreed to was the presentation of recommendations by the com mittee in favor of the passage of a bill de signed to check some of the more glaring evils flowing from the abuse of expert testimony. PROPOSED EXPERT TESTIMONY ACT The draft of the bill indorsed by the com mittee provides that no expert medical wit ness shall be paid or receive as compensation in any given case a sum in excess of the ordinary witness fees unless the court awards a larger sum, nor shall more than three ex perts be allowed to testify on either side as to the same issue in any given case, except in criminal prosecutions for homicide, or by express permission of the trial court. In criminal cases for homicide where the issues involve expert knowledge or opinion the court shall appoint one or more suitable disinterested persons, not exceeding three, to investigate such issues' and testify at the trial; and the compensation of such person or persons shall be fixed by the court and paid by the county where indictment was found, and the fact that such witness or wit nesses have been so appointed shall be made known to the jury. This provision shall not preclude either prosecution or defense from using other expert witness at the trial. It was specified that the bill is not in tended to apply to "witnesses testifying to the established facts or deductions of science, nor to any other specific facts, but only to witnesses testifying to matters of opinion." The measure favored by the committee also favored the designation, by the Supreme