The Editor’s Bag
E! EQQ [Hi
q! 1»
if:
THE CONNECTICUT CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
countenancing the solicitation of business by ambulance-chasing and other dis
HE Connecticut State Bar Associa tion, instead of adopting the American Bar Association Code of Ethics with such slight amendments as might be
from the more general phraseology that
reputable means, it is to be inferred
desired, chose to rearrange the materials of that Code in a new form, adding a. little here and subtracting a little there,
with the result that Connecticut lawyers now have a Code substantially similar to that of the American Bar Association,
marked by a finish and proportion which reflect a desire to avoid surplusage and to achieve simplicity. The committee which prepared the draft expressed the highest regard for the Code of the American Bar Associ ation, and stated that it had included substantially all the canons, re-arrang
the Association considers many princi ples of professional conduct so firmly established in Connecticut by the tra ditions of bench and bar that it is unnecessary to particularize to the extent of adopting the national Code
word for word. Not many material changes have been made. Among the most notable are
the restriction of the contingent fee canon, and of Canon 10 (A. B. A.), forbidding a lawyer to purchase any interest in litigation, making both apply only in the case of indigent clients. The declaration in Canon 29, that counsel
should bring a case of perjury committed during the trial to the attention of the
ing them, however, under five headings:
prosecuting authorities, is left out, as
“The Lawyer in Court," “The Lawyer
is also the clause in Canon 2 discounte
in His Ofiice," "Professional Etiquette,”
nancing the elevation to the bench of
“The Grievance Committee," and “The Lawyer's Relation to the Public.” It is extremely unlikely that such a proced
any one not willing to forego employ
ure would have been adopted but for the
conviction that “the bar in each state should in some form specially applicable to the conditions in that state affirm
the‘ principles set forth in these canons." Owing to the greater condensation of the rules prohibiting the subjection of
ments which might embarrass him in
the performance of ofl‘icial duty. Other rules, forbidding counsel from expressing in argument his personal belief in the
client's innocence or in the justice of his case, and setting forth the duties of re
straining clients from committing im proprieties, and of punctuality and
judges or juries to improper influences,
expedition (A. B. A. Canons 15, 16, 21), have been discarded. These omis
forbidding unseemly practices in ad vertising and self-exploitation, and dis
sions, however, do not necessarily point to a distinct lowering of professional
