The Canons of Legal Ethics
277
tingent fee canon. You may somehow there could be no excuse for their viola have gotten the notion that the Ameri tion, should be prepared, "to be given can Bar Association's Committee that operative and binding force by legisla drafted the code was hostile to con tion or the action of the highest courts tingent fees. Such I understand was far of the states, assuming that those courts from being the case. When that distin have, as doubtless they have in some guished Committee of fourteen members states, the power to make and enforce sent out its preliminary report with the such rules." No such endorsement is original clause about contingent fees sought for the code as a whole, but only bearing the unlucky number 13, it con for the oath. tained this notation: "Hon. James G. I am not going to take up your time Jenkins [the Wisconsin member] of the by going over the provisions of the Committee dissents from Canon 13, as code,—you are all familiar with those he is opposed to contingent fees under already,—nor am I going to take up any circumstances." He was the only your time discussing particular ethical member of that Committee of whom problems touched upon in those provi that was said, and, as a matter of fact, sions. I have no hesitancy in saying it is the real friends of the contingent that the Code will commend itself to fee system that support the canon, for the bar of the country as a whole and they realize that it is only if contingent that, because uniformity on this subject fees are not exorbitant in amount that is so desirable as well as because the they have a social or moral excuse for code itself is so essentially sound, it being. There are some contingent fee ought to be adopted by the Lancaster lawyers who are like Shylock, demand County Bar Association and by the ing their pound of flesh though it take Nebraska State Bar Association. You the life of the other contracting party, will be interested to know that after the just because it is written in the bond, preliminary draft of the Code appeared but for those who deal thus unjustly and before the final draft was adopted, with their fellows the bar has only a the states of Tennessee (May 23, 1908), righteous contempt. Florida (June 26, 1908) and Indiana I said just a little while ago that the (July 20, 1908), adopted that prelimi American Bar Association's Canons of nary draft, which is in all essentials the Ethics were not to be put in the same same as the final draft. Since" the final class with an act of the legislature. I draft was adopted by the American Bar must modify that statement in one Association, the states of North Dakota particular. Attached to the Code is a and New York have adopted it, and you form of oath of admission to the bar, will hear of many more states doing the to be recommended for adoption by same. the proper state authorities. To that ex The adherence of New York to the tent the Code seeks legislation, though Code is the most significant of all. The it is not asking in any other way for State Bar Association of New York has legal sanction. That oath finds its place adopted the Code, with only one slight there because of the suggestion of Mr. change. That change does not come in Justice Brewer of the United States the contingent fee canon—the so-called Supreme Court, who was himself a mem "commercialized" lawyers of New York ber of the Committee, that a short body saw no danger in that—but occurs in of rules, so few and clearly stated that that part of canon 5 relating to prose-
