The Lawyer's Livelihood loyalty to his client." "Quirk, Gammon & Snap," were figments of the imagina tion of a writer who himself was a lawyer. Herbert Spencer, in seeking concrete examples of good style, chose and perpetuated phrases such as these: "The low morality of the bar" and "He, who when reading a lawyer's letter should say 'Vile rascal'!" A recent editorial upon the new Code of Professional Ethics declared that "Among laymen there is a strong im pression that lawyers form a sort of guild and, like Roman augurs, wink when they meet each other" and that "some of the ablest, the most successful and the most influential lawyers are themselves wholly unprincipled. It is their chief business to tell wealthy clients how to keep the law in the letter, and break it in the spirit." Similar slurs upon real or imagined practices of lawyers might be adduced indefinitely, though the sincerity of the distrust is not always beyond question in view of the apparent willingness of parents of every class and calling to de vote their most promising offspring (like the eldest son of Anthony Trollope him self) to the pursuit of our much abused vocation, and to the peril of attracting clients of wealth and influence. But it would be neither wise nor helpful to pretend indifference to well meant criticism or to assume that wide spread public suspiciousness is without any reasonable justification. In the palace of truth, we must admit that in every rank of our profession may be found some who care little for high ideals, if indeed they suspect their ex istence. This, however, would not prove that in our profession the tone is lower than in others. Of course, it should be conspicuously higher, for in public affairs it assumes to lead, and is permitted to lead practically to the exclusion of
49
almost every other calling, except journ alism. The declared object of this Associa tion is "to elevate the standard of in tegrity, honor and courtesy in the legal profession" no less than "to cherish the spirit of brotherhood," and though we believe that to-day our ideals are not receding, we must recognize that general conditions and peculiar privileges, as well as this declared purpose, command the bar of this Empire State and its representative association to lead as well as to aid in advancing our professional standards. To this end we are bound to maintain and to enforce our newly adopted Code of Professional Ethics, a code which despite newspaper incredul ity attests sincerely and specifically the bar's comprehension of principles that should govern every lawyer in the dis charge of professional duty. Undoubtedly much popular discontent results from inability or unwillingness to recognize that of necessity the lawyer's obligation is twofold. As has been stated with discrimination in the Boston Green Bag,— It is easy to say that the fundamental princi ples of common honesty are simple and suffi cient, but it is a fact that there is a conflict very hard to adjust between the theory that the lawyer is a public officer, and the doc trine of loyalty to a client. To the lay reader these principles have long been hopelessly irreconcilable, and only the legal mind accus tomed to complexities and fine distinctions has been able to announce with certainty that the two are wholly harmonious. Few of the bar, however, have agreed as to the exact manner of reconciling them or as to the legal limits for the application of each to the specific problems of practice. The paramount claim of the state upon the lawyer as a citizen will con tinue to be asserted with emphasis and without qualification by public moral ists who themselves when in peril of fife
