1949 Petition to Integrate The Florida Bar

8/10/2019 1949 Petition to Integrate The Florida Bar

1/14

HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE

IN ;I: Iill SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

NO~ T T O

OF FLORIDA STATEBAR ASSOCIATION, e t a lHE:~

TO THE

The Flo r ida s t a t e Bar Associat ion, D 9 0 1 . _ ,and the Flo r ida s t a t e Bar Associat ion Committee on the

i n t eg ra t i on o f the Bar of the s t a t e o f Flor ida , b y and

under au tho r i t y o f the ac t ion o f the Board of Governors

o f the Flor ida s t a t e Bar Assooiat ion and by a n d under

the au tho r i t y o f the ac t i on of the membership o r the

Flo r ida s t a t e Bar Associa t ion , br ing t h i s Pe t i t i on p ray

ing f o r a Rule b y the SUpreme Court of F lor ida i n t e g r a t

ing the Bar o f Florid.a , and say:

I .

That . fo r more than t en 10) years the Flor ida s t a t e

Bar Assooia t ion , he re ina f t e r r e f e r r ed to as the Assoc1a

t i o n , has sought the i n t eg ra t i on o f the Bar of Flor ida

by a Rule o f the as Upreme Court of F lor ida . In response

to a P e t i t i o n b y the Associat ion to the Supreme Court

o f F lo r i d a , which P e t i t i o n inc luded many other th ings ,

and which only m i l d l y .urged in teg : ra t lon o f the Bar, the

Court did on January 8 1938 render an opinion found i n

186 Soutnern Repor te r, page ~ O Said Pe t i t i on may have

been p r e m a t u r e ~ y r i l e d with respec t to i n t eg ra t i on . Now,however, more than twenty-seven 27) of the s t a t e s o f the

Uni ted s t a t e s have adopted tne i n t eg r a t ed bar system,

e i t h e r by Rule o f Court o r s t a t u t e , or a combination o ~

both , a n d to date no ser ious objec t ion has been r a i s ed

where the i n t eg ra t ed bar i s a f a o t .

- 1


2/14

I I

The i s sue o f the F1or1daLaw

Journal of June,~ 6

pages 8 ~ a t seq (F lor ida Law Journal Volume XX, N o . 6

pages 181, a t s e q ) , c a r r i e s a Reso lu t ion adopted by the

Assoc ia t ion which s e t s r o r t h a t l e n g t h tne d e s i r e o f the

Assoc ia t ion witn regard t o i n t eg r a t i on , which Reso lu t ion

b y re fe rence 1 s made a p a r t hereof i n t o t o except t ha t

tbe d a t e s fo r the effec t iveness of the Rule on In tegra t ion

t h e r e i n conta ined a re to be changed since ce r t a i n o f those

dates a re now p a s t . The Assoc ia t ion on various occasions

has had before i t the mat t e r of i n t eg r a t i ng the Bar or1.f11orida and i n the F1.orida Law Journal o f June, 1946 Volume

JOC, No.6 , page 6 S ~ e t seq , the mat te r was disoussed by

the then Pres ident o f the Assooia t ion , Honorable Ju l i u s

F . Earker.

The m a t t e r was aga in before the Assooia t ion as appears

i n the Flor ida Law J o u ~ a l o f ~ m e 1947 Volume XlI ,

N o . 6 page 184, a t seq . I n o ~ d e r t h a t i t might be known

t h a t the merabers o the Bar of F lor ida .favored overwhelm-ing1y i n t e g r a t i o n b y Rule o f Court and to remove any doubt

as to t h e wishes o r the members of the Bar o f Flor ida#

the Associa t ion conducted a p o l l of the Bar as h e r e i n a t t e r

shown.

I I I .

The Associa t ion i s a non p r o f i t *lBLI-\

' \uninoorporated Assooiation

_ voluntary land the p r e s e n t membership o f

t h e Assoc ia t ion i s 2407. On september 10, 9 ~ 7 there wereapprox1ruately 2700 members o f the Bar o r F l o r l d a ~ Inc lud-

ing those t h ~ t were members and those t h a t were not members

of the Assooia t ion . I n order to have an accura te mai l ing

l i s t every avai lab le law l i s t was consu1ted mld the OOCU-

pa t i o n a l l i o e n s e l i s t i n each o ~ the 67 count ies o f Flo r ida

were examined. It was determined t h a t the re were only

the above mentioned members of the 3ar of F l o r i d a .

- ?


3/14

The Associa t ion then dispatched to each member of

the Bar o Flo r ida whether a member of the Assooia t ion

o r no t , a l e t t e r da ted september 10, ~ 7 ~ r o m the then

Chairman or the Bar I n t eg ra t i on Comm2ttee, Ju l i u s F.

P a r k e r, a copy o ~ which l e t t e r i s here to a t tached and

made a p a ~ t he reo f . With each l e t t e r was sen t a p r e

pared p o s t a l card b a l l o t with appropr ia te provis ion t h e r e -

on : for each member o f the Bar t o i nd i ca t e y marking the

b a l l o t whether or no t he was i n favor o f i n t e g r a t i o n of

the Bar of Flo r ida , with annual dues o f Five and no/100

D o l l a r s ~ 5 . 0 0 ) . The member o f the Bar was permi t ted tos ign or no t s ign the ca rd b a l l o t . A pos tage paid b a l l o t

p o s t a l c a r d addressed to the Flo r ida s t a t e Bar Assoc ia t ion

was s e n t to each member o f the Bar of F lor ida and a l l

b a l l o t s were d e l i v e r e d to the Honorable Guyte P . MoCord

Clerk o f the supreme Court of ~ ~ o r i d a o member of the

Bar o th e r than t h e C1Grk p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the coun t ing o f

the b a l l o t s unless c e r t a i n members of the Supreme Court

p a r t i c i p a t e d . The Clerk of s a i d Court on December 9,

1947 i s s u e d h i s C e r t ~ l c a t e ce r t i f y ing t h a t 1131 b a l l o t s

were c a s t i n favor o f i n t eg ra t i on as presented and 500

b a l l o t s evan were ca s t i n oppos i t ion . some 2700 of such

b a l l o t s were mai led t o the members o f the Bar of F i o r l d a

and the t o t a l b a l l o t s ca s t were 1631. I t has been con

s id e r e d 1n a l l qua r t e r s t h a t t was a f a i r method and a

f a i r l y conducted p o l l .

IV.

For t h e l n o ~ a t o n of the Court , there i s h e r e t o

a t t a ched and made a p a r t hereof , an address on Bar

In t eg ra t i on y Jus t i ce Edward F. C a r t e r o f tIle supreme

Court o f Nebraska, whioh not only s e t s f o r t h l og i ca l

reasoning and the exper ience of bars t ha t en joy i n t e -

g r a t i o n but i s a lso an e x p ~ e s s l o n of an eminent con

temporary j u r i s t which address was publ i shed i n the

F 1 0 r i d a Law Journa l of Apr i l , 1947 Volume XXI N o . 4 .

-3


4/14

v.The mat ter of i n t eg ra t i on or the Bar o r Flor ida has

been discussed widely throughout the s t a t e of Flor ida or

some t en (10) y ~ s a t var ious Bar Assoc ia t ion meetings

and a t annual meet ings of the Assoc ia t ion and i n f o ~ m t i o n

gene ra l l y has been disseminated to everyone as to the

purpose and good to be accomplished by i n t eg ra t i ng the

Bar or F l o r ida b y Rule of Court. There has been nopublic and open oppoai t i on to i n t eg ra t i on . There have

been wr i t t en no a r t i c l e s n o r has there been c i t e d any

au tho r i t y c o n t r a r y to the Rule sought i n t h i s P e t i t i o n .

There are , as i s to be expected because of the demoorat

i o r i g h t o f d1fering i n opinion, a very tew i so l a t ed

members o f the Bar who do not favor i n t eg ra t i on , but of

the more than twenty-seven (27) s t a t e s t ha t have i n t eg ra

t i on no showing has been made tha t t i s unsuccess fu l ,

and on the cont rary, a l l o f those s t a t e s adopting the

i n t eg ra t ed b a r have voiced publ ic ly, and i n the various

pub l i ca t i ons t h a t bar i n t eg ra t i on i s sa t i s f ao to ry and

l ends i t s e l f to the improvement of t ~ l l t y of the bar

and 1s an impor tan t f a c t o r in bui ld ing publ ic r e spec t '

f o r the ba r. In t eg ra t i on removes those f ac to r s t h a t

br ing t h e ba r i n t o d i s r epu t e . As r e cen t l y as October

23, 1948 a t a meeting of the Board t Governors of the

Assoc ia t ion , t h i s P e t i t i o n was unanimously approved.

WHEREFORE, p e t i t i o n e r s p tay t ha t t h e cour t wi l l en t e r

the Ru1e of In t eg ra t i on with appropr ia te changes as to

da tes and f igures which Rule i s fotmd i n the form of a

Resolu t ion by the Flor ida s t a t e Bar Assoc ia t ion i n the

Flo r ida Law Journa l of June 1946 (Volume XX N o . 6 ,

pages 181 , e t seq, and t h a t the oourt en t e r such other

Rules i n the premises as may be proper. And the

-4


5/14

p e t i t i o n e r s w l l ever pray, e tc .

FLORIDA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

OwThUTTEE ON INTEGRATION OF THEB R OF FLORID

.


6/14

COMMITTEE ON BAR INTEGRATION OF THE

FLORIDA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ]ULItJI F. P A.BDl\ Chmmum

BrocJc Building, Tallahassee, Fla.

JOHN DlcaNSON, Vice-Chmmum, 2555-Srd Avenue N.St. Petersburg, Fla.

LBROY CoLLINS G. L. ltBBvKa, . MANLEY P. J HDmy BLOUNT,Midyette-Moor Building,Tal1ah usee, Fla.

Box i l l lTampa, Fla.

Box 751,West Palm Beach, Fla.

Barnett Nat' Bank Bldg.,IacboDville, Fla.

September 10, 1947TO THE LAWYERS OF FLORIDA:

For years, the Florida Sta te Bar Association has sponsored a move tor theintegration of the Bar of' the State .

The Assooiation i s very much in teres ted in learning the wi l l o f a l l 9f thelawyers in th is State on t h i s sUbject. For tha t purpose you' wil l f i ~ enclosed apostcard bal lot addressed t o the F lo ri da State Bar Association, P.O. Box 1226,Tallahassee, Florida, whioh i s a bal lot giving you the privilege of expressing youropinion. These cards wil l be kept segregated, and counted in the presenoe of o ~ o r -able Guyte P. MoCord, Clerk t the Supreme Cour,t. I t i s not neoessary that you signthe bal lot , although a plaoe i s provided for that purpose, and i t i s the bel ief ofthe Bar Committee that signed bal lots wil l have more e t f ec t with the Supreme Court,but signing i t i s not compulsory, and you can vote without signing i t i f you care todo so. The postage i s paid on the bal lot , and your oooperation i s sinoerely s o l i -oited in order to have the ful les t expression of the opinion of a l l of the lawyersof Florida.

The Committee p l an s i n t he event the .vote i s 'favorable, to f i l e a' pet i t ion withthe SUpreme Court asking i t to in tegra te the Bar by court ru le. The rule which theSUpreme Court wil l be asked to adopt wil l require each lawyer to belong to the in t e -grated bar, and to pay to the Treasurer of the integrated Bar 15.00 ~ u a l l y for dues.

~ e ent i re a ffa i r s or the integrated bar wil l then be run by a governing board,one member' to be se leoted from each judioia l oirouit . Any disciplinary action takenby the Board wil l be subject to direot review by the Supreme Court. This generalpolioy may be modified some to meet the demands t the Supreme Court i f i t approvesintegration.

For your further information, we are enclosing a copy of a speeoh deliveredbefore the l a s t meeting of the Bar Assooiation on the subjeot by Judge Edwin Carter t the Supreme Court of Nebraska.

While the Bar Assooiation has for a long time favored integration, th is l e t t e ris sent to you seeking your honest opinion o ~ the subjeot. When we present the p e t i -t ion to the Supreme Court, t i t i s presented, we want to be able to s t a t e thatnotioes were mailed to a l l lawyers whose addresses were available, and that from themailing we reoeived and oounted the votes so tha t we oan demonstrate suooessfullywhether or no t the lawyers t th i s s ta te aotually want the bar integrated.

Regardless of which way you vote, please do vote, sign your name i t you oare to ,and drop the enolosed bal lot in the mail. Your cooperation in securing a s b ig a voteas possible wil l be deeply appreoiated.

et elY yours, v ': W .k .1A fJ :i2VJul ius F. Parker, Chairman,,Bar Integration Comaittee

. JFP:gd


7/14

I ~ i ~ taVoi-~ ~ I ~ r a t ~ ~ , t h ; , Bar o f t ~ S ~ ~ Ftori.ia which fill, ' ~ : . ~ ~ I r ~ e v ~ r y - . : J l e ~ r - ~tile Bar ~ f F . J o r l ~ to ~ I o n g . tQ J ~ t e g ~ t e d bar ~ n c f , ,the ~ Qf.$S.OOQ -ucil ~ u e s and the ~ r V f s O nf .the B a r s d ~ i p l i n a r y

, - . . acti n y 'difect nWlew 'of the ~ 'CoUrt. -.: .', . . . ' . ; . . : ;

( I ~ ~ u , - ~ ~ l s . : . ; ; ~ ~ ) ~ I ~ the boll ,- ,0 '. .' ~ ~ . . ~ -.' : . .'. .

I : ~ i tot .I.n f a ~ r . ~ l t ~ i n t e g ~ t k n ~ ; o f \ ~ . ~ ~ o f . t ~ . S ~ ~ t ~ o f : : F l o r l ~ : -: '

IU yoU dO 'nOt f a ; I ~ 1 o n of th.BCir;~ d


8/14

B R INTEGR TION

Boy

JUSTICE EDWARD F CARTER

of th Supreme Oourt of ebraska

p r i ~ t from lorida aw Journal

April 1946


9/14

85LORIDA LAW JOURNAL

B R INTEGRATION

y JUSTICE EDWARD F. CARTER, 0/ the Supreme ourt of Nebraska

There is danger, in discussing a subject of such magnitude as bar integration of finding one's self tightly lodged upon one of the horns of an embal.rassing d i l e ~ m a : o f dealing with the subject in g l i ~ t e r i n g g e n e r a ~ i ~ i and thereby addIng lIttle to the general knowledge of the subJect, or of localIZIngthe subjects so closely to our experiences in Nebraska at the risk of becomingbOl'esome. ,The avoidance of these pitfalls is a matter which will constantlybe before me in this address.

At first blush an integrated bar may seem to be a mere novelty to mostlawyers. I am frank to say that I believe the use of the word integratedwas an unwise choice of words. There is a tendency to give an air of mysteryto the use of the term. To integrate a bar of a state means the unification ofthe diverse and multiple elements of the bar into an organized whole. I t carrieswithin this definition the idea of all-inclusive membership. n integrated barwhich did not require every lawyer to be a member simply would not be anintegrated bar. I t is the organization of the profession of law as distinguished'from a voluntary organization of lawyers.

An integrated bar is no novelty. I t is, as a matter of fact, the oldest andpossibly the most common type of bar organization. In England and the BritishDominions, which share with us a c'ommon language and a common law, allbar associations are and always have been self-governing bodies to which all

practitioners belong. The Inns of Court, about which we have heard so much,are nothing more than integrated bars under a different name. France,Germany, and practically every other European nation, have had all-inclusivebar associations. The thought in the minds of 80 many lawyers that integratedbar associations are something new and untried is without any foundation infact. The not ion that they represent the thinking of those who merely wantto lead a parade, or of those who have a tendency to advocate change as evidenceof broadmindedness and proof of a liberalized viewpoint, is just as fallacious.The integrated bar is nothing more than a self-governing organization of theprofession within a given area. By entering the profession, the lawyer simplysteps into a self-governing bar, working for the good of all the profession, andconsequently for each member in it.

}

Prior to 1860 there were few bar associations within the United States.The country was new and in a pioneer stage of development. The bar was notovercrowded. Little attention was paid to the requirements for admission.There was no serious threat of inroads by corporations and natural personsseeking to engage tD the unlawful practice of the law. The promulgation of tacode of ethics was ri9t even contemplated. Discipline for professional misconductwas left pretty large,lY to public opinion.

.But this s i t u t i o ~ could not long endure in the face of the rapid growth

of the country and t h ~ growing c o m p l ~ t y of our problems. Evils very detri


10/14

8_6 ' _F_L_O_R_ID_A_L_A_W_J_O_U_R : N_A_L : ~ ~ .--__

mental to the profession began to appear. The lawyers began to realize thathey themselves had an interest in keepjng the profession an honorable oneAnd so i t was that self-protection, the desire for. 'professionaI' association nthe urge to better the legal profession, caused volllntary bar associations tspring up. The American Bar Association was not organized until 1879 andstate bar associations were not general until about 1900. But the membershipin these voluntary associations was small when compared with the total numbeof lawyers. The bar was not united and a fairly distributed financial supportwas not forthcoming. I t was only natural that the lawyers should turn to theall-inclusive bar to provide the dignity, the manpower and the financial SUPP01to place the profession of the law on a high plane.

The integrated bar movement was conimenced in 1914 by Mr. HerbertH a r l e y ~ Secretary of the Americ'an Judicature Society, in an address deliveredto the Lancaster County Bar Association a t Lincoln, Nebraska. Nebraska, however, was the 18th state to adopt bar integration. At the present time 4states have adopted i t . Only three of these states have integrated bars bcourt rule, the balance have . attained i t by legislative action. It is not ypurpose to discuss the relative merits 'of integration by legislative or judicial

act. I t is self-evident, I think, that integration by court rule permits a moreserviceable method,--corrective changes can be more quickly made and itspolitic'al aspects are not so prominent. .

In Nebraska the attempt to integrate by court rule met with the usualobjections. The legal objections, c o n s t i t ~ t i o n a l and otherwise, are set forthin the court s opinion sustaining the application for an integrated bar by courtr,uIe. This opinion ~ s c i ~ e d as In r ~ Integ;ration of. the Nebraska State BalAssociation, 183 ,Neb. 288, 275 'N. 'W.' 265, 114 A ~ R151. Other objections,then voiced, are seldom heard, after more ,than nine years of successful opera-tion. There was fear that the supreme court. would control the policies of thebar. This has been largely dissipated. The supreme court has taken no actionexcept that , i t was initfated by the bar itself. The bar has truly. been self-

governing and free from judicial ' domination. Dues of five dollars per yearare required under our rule. .Objections were heard as to that, but the servicerendered and tl;Le. progress ~ a d e have elim,inated even that objection. We nowhear talk of the bar raising the due to $7.pO in order to ~ n the operationsof the organization. With these preliminary remarks I would like to point tothe benefits which we have. received from. this form of organization.

In the first place, to organize a profession i t 'is, necessary that everymember belong to it. We have about 2,200 lawyers in Nebraska, all of whomnecessarily are members. ,Before integration, the number in the state barassociation never exceeded 1,200 lawyers. Attendance at state bar meetingsat the present time runs from 20 to 85 percent greater, although no statisticsare available to prove this statement. Prior: to integration the attendance never

exceeded 250. Every member -of the bar receives the Nebraska Law Reviewby virtue of his membership. rh i s publication has b e c o ~ e a valued asset tothe Nebraska lawyer, made .possible ,onlY by i n t e g r ~ t i o n with i ts . consequentadded m ~ m b e r s h i p . Bar c o m m u n i ~ t i o n s to all the bar resulting solely fromintegration have added tremendously to the interest and constructive activitiesof the profession.

The most noticeable improvement has occurred in the field of bar d i s i p lUnder our bar i n t e g r a t i o ~ rule the original h a n d ~ i n g of matters pertaining tobar. dispipline' is left to the laWyers themselves, although the right to disciplinea lawyer for unethical practice is reserved solely, for the court. All' complaints


11/14

87LORIDA LAW JOURNAL

tnt 1st originate \vith a bar committee appointed by the COllrt in each jlldicialdistrict. The committee may hold hearings without public access, subpoena\vitness es , make satisfactory adjustments, reprinland attorneys and make conditional requirements as to future conduct. I f the offense is fOllnd to be of suchnla.gllitude as to require more severe discipline, i t is so recommended and therecord forwarded to the advisory committee of lawyers of s t a t e - ~ i d e jurisdiction.If the ad,risory committee agrees t h ~ t disciplinary actioll is .reqllired, the nlatteris f o r ~ a r d e d to the supreme court. The court thereupon directs tIle attorneygelleraI to file disciplinary proceedings in the supreme cOllrt. Disciplinaryactions of the latter sort are few and- far between.

Under our voluntary bar association s e ~ - l 1 p1 ~ V Y e r s had a general tendencyto render whatever aid they could to the lawyer in distl"ess. Under the presentset-up they have accepted the responsibility lodged with them. They 11 W knowthat they can in the first instance invoke corrective measures. The latent fearthat a court too far removed and not too familiar with the individuals involvedmight throw the book" a t all offending practitioner, is no longer preaellt. I tis the committee on inquiry that can initiate the proceeding and, consequent :r,it is only those who deserve discipline in the estimation of the bar itself that aresubjected to the procedure. The lawyers have done a magnificent job in thisfield. Matters of ethics have been disposed of without a word of adversepublicity. u b l i ~ c r i t i c i s ~ of unethical practice is a t the lowest ebb since yadmission to the bar. I t is the most satisfactory solution wi4;h which I havecome in contact.

It is not only fair to the lawyer who has strayed fronl the ethical path,but. i t has proved a bOOll to the ethical lawyer wrongfully accused of professionalmisconduct. Too often charges against ethical practitioners have d o ~ e tre-mendous harm before any opportunity arose for a discovery 'of the facts. I t,as easy under the old system for a disgruntled litigant, or one suffering frommental strain, to launch unfounded charges, which often reached the publicpress before any investigation could be made by any responsible person orgroup. This has been largely eliminated under our present system. I t affordsjustice, tempered with leniency in proper cases, to the unethical practitioner,and i t affords complete protection to the ethical practitioner from unwarrantedattack. These factors alone have justified bar integration, both from the standpoint of the public and the bar.

Another outstanding contributioll of the integrated bar to the professionhas been the inaugllration of legal institutes and law clinics for tIle benefitof practicing lawyers. Such subjects as the New Federal Court Rules, Bankrupt.cy & Corporate Reorganization, Current Nebraska Legislation, FederalTaxation, Post War Institutes (for the purpose of acquainting lawyers returningfrom military service with changes in practice and procedure occurring duringtheir absence), and Federal Tax Clinics, constituted the topics discussed. Whilegreat interest was manifested by the attendance at all of these institutes andclinics, i t seemed to me that those dealing with federal taxation produced thebest results when measured by attendance records. In 1946 these tax clinicswere held in three different cities of Nebraska.

The expense was borne by the bar association, the experts in the variousfields pi"ocured by the bar and the preliminary work performed by the officers oftIle bar. Without tIle integrated bar, and its all-inclusive membership, this servicecould not have been provided for financial reasons. I t has been a distinct serviceto the lawyer, particularly in those fields which have opened up to the lawyersin recent years.


12/14

88 FLORIDA LAW JOURNAL. : . . . : . . . _ _ . . . : . . . . _ .

The increased attendance a t state bar meetings has made possible theinauguration of sectional meetings.. Insurance, Real Estate, Municipal, Admin istrative and Labor law sections have been very h e l p ~ u l to practitioners in thosefields, and in many instances they have rendered valuable aid to the legislaturein those branches of the law. While I give little space to the work of thesections, their w-ork is a distinct contribution to the profession.

The integrated bar, through the Judicial Council which is an integral partof our bar set-up, 'has made great strides in simplifying and expediting Courtprocedures in Nebraska. Previously no resposible group of the bar was chargedw i t ~ the duty of making the research to the accomplishment 'of this importantfunction of the bar. The public attitude is much better since i t has becomeknown that the questions concerning the law s delays, the expense of litigationand the correction of a b u s e ~are being scientifically attacked in an intelligentand systematic manner . The old statement. so often heard in public of Whydoesn't the bar do something about it 1 is being heard less and less. The re sponsibility of the bar to the public has been stressed and promulgated withthe result that a very .favorable reaction is resulting from it. The relation ofthe bar with the public has certainly improved 'during bar integration ~ thisis a .matter of t r e ~ e n d o u s importance to lawyers.

As you have no doubt suspected by this time, I am. wholeooartedly in favorof the integrated bar system. It has increased the professional consciousnessof .the lawyers of m y state, i t has made expert information available to ourlawyers in a manner that they could attain in no o ~ e r way, i t has broughtabout changes in practice and procedure that have speeded up and expeditedlitigation, i t has simplified court procedure and made i t less expensive in manyinstances, and i t has tended to reestablish the faith of the public in the inherentdignity and honesty of the time honored profession of the law. I submit thati f these things can only be partly aC complished by the integratjon of theprofession, it is ample justification for its existence. I cannot help but feel thatNebraska has p r ~ f i t egreatly from it, and as misconceptions of i ts purposes

gradually' disappear, as they will, the opportunities for greater successes arebound to follow. .I t is not my purpose to discuss in detail the reasons why bar integration

by ~ o u r t rule has been rejected in' many states where the bar has evidenced a~ s i r e for this form of organization. I do want to point out that there is a

close relationship between ' the lawyers and the administration of justice. Thelawyers as officers of the court are a p rt of the judicial branch of our government. The qualifications of applicants for admission to the bar and the regulation of the bar-are inherently judicial functions which should not be abandoned to the control ot other agencies. The almost complete abdica.tion of ther u l e ~ n g power by the bench and bar reflects no credit upon the bench and

bar of this country . The c ourts, with the support of the bar, must not perlnitthe usurpation of judicial functions, whether they be specifically granted powers,or whether they be implied r inherent powers. The admission, regulation anddiscipline of lawyers is the responsibility of the bench and bar and that responsibility should not be shirked. The ~ i g n i t y of the bench and bar before the publiccannot be maintained i f we fail In our duty and corrective measures are left tootl;1ers. A courag eous rather than a hesitant approach is :required by benchand bar alike.

.


13/14

INDEX OF SUBJECT MATTER4

ageIl\fTRODUCTION

HISTORY

QUESTIONS INVOLVED

FIRST QUESTION 5

SECOND QUESTION 6

ARGUMENT

FIRST QUESTION

SECOND QUESTION 2

O l ~ L U S O N 35


14/14

ALPHABETICAL LI'ST OF CITED AUTHORITIES

PageADDRESS ON BAR INTEGRATION, By Jus t i ce .Edward F. ~ t e r of N ~ b r a s k a , Florida LawJou rna l , Apr i l , 1947 - 3,10&23

M ~ N O T A T I O N , 1 1 ~ A.L.R. 151 (165) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

ANNOTATION, 114 A.L.R. 1 6 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4A ~ r n O T A T I O I \ J , 1 5 ~ A. L.R. 586 (619) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

BAR D ~ T E G R A T I O T BY CARL V. ESSERY, JournalOf The American Judicature Society, .April , 1936 12&35

IN BE GIBSON, ~ P (2d) 643 (648) 0 18

; I l ~ BE ~ 1 U N D Y , 202 La. 41, 11 So. ' (2d) 98 (400) 17

4INTEGRATION OF B RCASE 244 Wis 8, 11 NW 2d 604, .151 A.L.R. 586 (Q08) 6

INTEGRATION OF STATE BAR OF O K L A H O ~ ~ , 185 Okla. 505,95? 2d 113 (116) t 7&10

LETTERS FR01-1 JUSTICES. OF THE SUPREME COURT,JoUrnal Of The A m e r i c ~ a n Judicature Society,October, 1941, December 1941, and F ~ b r u a r y , 1 9 ~ 2 25

, .

PAST, PRESENT 41ID FUTURE OF THE LEGALPROFESSION, Adq,ress de l ive red . by .Arthur T.Vanderbil t , Convention of the Amefican BarAssociat ion, Boston, August, 1936 31

PETI'TION OF FLORIDA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION134 Fla . 8 5 1 , . 1 8 6 - Q o ~ . ~ 8 0 ~ 8 9 ) t ~ . 2&15

BE INTEGRATION OF STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

OF NEBRASlCAJ Neb. . - - ? 7 _ ~ l l W ~ 6 5 ,

.114 A.L.R 1.5n154 . . 8

WHOLE BAR ORGANIZATION A NECESSITY,ByFrederick W. C. Webb, Journal Of TheAmerican J u d i e a t ~ e Society, August, 1945 14,21&36

Documents

1949 Petition to Integrate The Florida Bar