Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/270

 The Editor’s Bag

E! EQQ [Hi

q! 1»

if:

THE CONNECTICUT CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

countenancing the solicitation of business by ambulance-chasing and other dis

HE Connecticut State Bar Associa tion, instead of adopting the American Bar Association Code of Ethics with such slight amendments as might be

from the more general phraseology that

reputable means, it is to be inferred

desired, chose to rearrange the materials of that Code in a new form, adding a. little here and subtracting a little there,

with the result that Connecticut lawyers now have a Code substantially similar to that of the American Bar Association,

marked by a ﬁnish and proportion which reﬂect a desire to avoid surplusage and to achieve simplicity. The committee which prepared the draft expressed the highest regard for the Code of the American Bar Associ ation, and stated that it had included substantially all the canons, re-arrang

the Association considers many princi ples of professional conduct so ﬁrmly established in Connecticut by the tra ditions of bench and bar that it is unnecessary to particularize to the extent of adopting the national Code

word for word. Not many material changes have been made. Among the most notable are

the restriction of the contingent fee canon, and of Canon 10 (A. B. A.), forbidding a lawyer to purchase any interest in litigation, making both apply only in the case of indigent clients. The declaration in Canon 29, that counsel

should bring a case of perjury committed during the trial to the attention of the

ing them, however, under ﬁve headings:

prosecuting authorities, is left out, as

“The Lawyer in Court," “The Lawyer

is also the clause in Canon 2 discounte

in His Oﬁice," "Professional Etiquette,”

nancing the elevation to the bench of

“The Grievance Committee," and “The Lawyer's Relation to the Public.” It is extremely unlikely that such a proced

any one not willing to forego employ

ure would have been adopted but for the

conviction that “the bar in each state should in some form specially applicable to the conditions in that state affirm

the‘ principles set forth in these canons." Owing to the greater condensation of the rules prohibiting the subjection of

ments which might embarrass him in

the performance of oﬂ‘icial duty. Other rules, forbidding counsel from expressing in argument his personal belief in the

client's innocence or in the justice of his case, and setting forth the duties of re

straining clients from committing im proprieties, and of punctuality and

judges or juries to improper inﬂuences,

expedition (A. B. A. Canons 15, 16, 21), have been discarded. These omis

forbidding unseemly practices in ad vertising and self-exploitation, and dis

sions, however, do not necessarily point to a distinct lowering of professional