Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/90

 The Lawyer of Fifty Years Ago prise in which he has his money at stake to the consideration of purely legal ques tions. Not infrequently he loses his taste for such questions, which is another way of saying that he loses his love for the law, and from the moment that a man does that he is no longer a lawyer. No human being will ever render the amount and quality of service, undergo the enormous toil exacted by that mis tress, unless for love. Such a lawyer, in any event, never goes into court except when he is obliged to do so. In other words he goes as infrequently as pos sible. As a natural consequence, he loses his intimate knowledge of the wea pons of advocacy, and consequently handles them with less skill than one who is in the constant practice of that noble art. As a further consequence, the trial proceeds with less promptitude and cel erity, much greater time is consumed in the examination of witnesses and the discussion of legal questions, and from this cause also the administraion of justice becomes less efficient and loses respectability in the eyes of the litigants, and of the public. Thus the reputation of the bar suffers. While trials fifty years ago frequently lasted longer than the same kind of a case would now, yet it must be remembered that people had a great deal more time for them in those days than they have now. But there is another and perhaps graver evil which results in the cities from our American practice of attempt ing to unite the functions of the busi ness lawyer and the trial lawyer, of the solicitor and the barrister, in the same person, and that evil is delay. As a result of nearly thirty years of observation and experience in the trial of causes, I am persuaded that, so far as the state of Maryland, at any rate, is concerned, at least one-half, and

69

perhaps a much larger percentage of the delay in the administration of justice is due to postponements granted for the convenience of counsel. These delays are necessarily incident to our system. The vast majority of them are in nowise attributable to any evil motives or unworthy character in the counsel for whose benefit they are granted. Not many years ago there died in the city of Baltimore one of the most accomp lished lawyers and one of the highest men who graced the Maryland bar, or for that matter, the bar of any other state or country; and yet during a cer tain period of his life there was current at the Baltimore bar the saying of some irreverent wag that the employment of this gentleman by the defendant in any suit in the courts of Maryland was "equi valent to the obtention of an injunc tion without bond." His engagements were very numerous, his health was pre carious, and when a case in which he appeared was called for trial, the chances were about five to one that it would have to be postponed because of his being engaged in the trial of a case else where, or because of indisposition, as he was a frequent sufferer from throat trouble at that time. I mention this case only because it is most conspicu ous and illustrative. Every lawyer, however, who pauses to reflect, will, I think, agree with me on this point. What is the experience as regards this matter of the average litigant in our courts? He no longer has to wait any great length of time before his case is first called for trial. A few years ago the dockets of our courts were much congested, and sometimes twelve months or even eighteen months might elapse between the institution of a suit and the time that it was reached for trial on the docket. That condition,