The Recall of Lawyers
135
That's why so many voters, with obtuseness unsurpassed, Deserted me because I was the choice of Tillingast; And that vile serpent, Tillingast, was smart enough to see The way for him to beat me was to 'lectioneer for me. So on account of Tillingast's low-down, two-faced rascality Young Adam Reese defeated me by sixty-four plurality. But Tillingast received a shock conducive to repentance; And I therefor await in dread my undecided sentence Till Justice Reese has found in Swan the penalty at law Where Richard Roe has sorely smote John Doe upon the jaw. That's what I did to Tillingast for his temerity When he slapped me on the back and said, "Hello, J. P!" Clyde, O.
The Recall of Lawyers BY Louis H. WINCH CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE OHIO CIRCUIT COURT [Chief Justice Winch, speaking at the annual banquet of Ohio Probate Judges at Cleve land, Jan. 9, advocated the "recall" of lawyers for incompetence. We heartily approve of the suggestion that there should be some means of re-examining the qualifications of a practitioner at the bar, and of suspending from practice those who are incompetent, as well as those who are dishonest or corrupt. In fact the evil of incompetence is at the present time more serious than that of dishonesty, because no available remedy for it exists. — Ed.]
1AM in favor of the recall of incompetent lawyers. While the mistakes of incompetent judges are ordinarily corrected by reviewing courts, there is no way of correcting the mistakes of incompetent lawyers. We can get rid of a dishonest or cornipt lawyer, but there is no way of getting rid of the incompetent lawyer, and the latter, ordinarily, does the most damage. This thought came to me during a recent examination of the merits and demerits of the Ohio code of civil procedure, made for the New York State Bar Association at the request of
Hon. F. L. Taft, President of the Ohio State Bar Association. I made up my mind that the Ohio code is about as simple and suitable to the purpose as it can be, but that, nevertheless, there is a vast amount of poor pleading, Take the case in Cleveland — with twelve common pleas judges, two of them spend all their time in hearing and deciding dilatory pleadings, motions, and demurrers. The same number of judges dispose of all the criminal business of the county. The time thus spent not only delays the cases in which the motions and de murrers are filed, but puts back the entire docket many months.
