ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

of an alternating bar association committee beyond cheerful endurance. Such cities in Michigan are:

[blocks in formation]

In cities of less than 10,000 population, the committee believes the ordinary charity work done by lawyers for their clients will be ample.

Realizing that information concerning legal aid must be disseminated before the work itself can progress, the committee has brought the subject to the attention of the bar associations of the most populous communities, included in the first list above stated, by letters sent to them briefly setting forth the attitude of the American Bar Association toward legal aid, the recognized responsibility of the bar in the premises, the need for development of organized legal aid as found in the experience of those legal aid bureaus and societies now operating in the larger cities, the hope of the committee that Michigan may eventually boast a state wide system of legal aid for its poorer citizens, the advantages of any plan of organized legal aid, the methods of approaching the problem, and finally an effort to induce action by the local bar associations toward the appointment of local legal aid committees. Copies of these letters were sent by each member of the committee to his personal acquaintances in the profession residing in the different cities named.

An invitation has been sent to talk on the subject to the social service workers of the state in conference at Flint September 19th. This will afford an opportunity to inform the social service groups, of the State Bar Association's interest, and to enlist the assistance of those agencies in the shaping of whatever legal aid structure may be contemplated.

The committee is mindful of the difficulties involved in an undertaking to attain the ends herein designated as desirable, but as the accomplishment of most good things results only from hard work and surmounting of difficulties, your special committee sees fit to

recommend that a similar committee be appointed for the ensuing year with direction to act in such manner as it may deem expedient for the furtherance of legal aid in Michigan.

Your committee further recommends approval and support of legislation which would permit cities in Michigan over 25,000 population to establish and maintain an office of legal aid as a department of municipal government, and suggests that the committee on Legislation and Law Reform be requested to prepare and present to the Association for consideration whatever bill may be necessary to grant such authority.

Respectfully submitted,

SPENCER D. KELLEY,

1007 Bauch Bldg., Lansing, Mich.

WILLIAM K. CLUTE,

404 Houseman Bldg., Grand Rapids, Mich. JOHN C. GRAVES,

Flint, Mich.

OTTO G. WISMER,

71 Warren W., Detroit, Mich., Chairman.

BETTER SALARIES FOR JUDGES

Through the courtesy of Senator Couzens there is being mailed to members of the Michigan State Bar Association a copy of the 1923 report of the American Bar Association's Committee on Judicial Salaries. While this report has already been placed in the hands of members of the American Bar Association, the proportion of Michigan lawyers in that body is so few (454 out of 3,0037 according to the latest available figures) that it seemed desirable to give the valuable information contained in it a wider circulation.

The chairman of the American Bar Association's committee, Mr. A. B. Andrews of Raleigh, N. C., reports that the Reed and Graham bills, measures for the increase of salaries of federal judges, have had hearings before sub-committees of the Senate and House, in December, 1924. The American Bar Association's committee desires and surely ought to receive the co-operation of lawyers throughout the country to secure the passage of this much needed legislation.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON GRIEVANCES MICHIGAN STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, 1924

In accordance with the provisions of the by-laws, the Committee Grievances of the Michigan State Bar Association herewith submits to you, and through you to the Association, its Annual Report.

Since the last Annual Meeting of the Association, there have come to the Committee for investigation a total of nineteen complaints in writing, of which the larger part were referred to your Committee by the president or the secretary of the Association. This

larger number of complaints than the Committee has received during the past few years, but this fact does not in our judgment tend to prove that the standard of conduct among the profession in Michigan has lowered. On the contrary, your Committee is pleased to report that upon careful investigation of each one of these narratives, there has in no case been presented to the Committee a state of facts which seem to justify proceedings for disbarment or professional discipline.

Formal reports have been made by your Committee to the officers of the Association in three or four of these cases, the circumstances of which seem to call for such action. However, no complaint has been received during the year which, after careful consideration, has persuaded the members of your Committee that any member of the Bar of this State has intentionally and deliberately violated his duty either to his client, or to the court, or to the public. Your Committee reports this conclusion from its year's work with pleasure.

Misunderstandings between attorney and client account for many complaints; negligence on the part of the attorney in accounting to his client is the underlying cause or occasion for the larger portion of this year's complaints. Seldom has it occurred that a member of the bar has not responded promptly, and, in most cases satisfactorily, to an inquiry coming from the Committee regarding a complaint affecting the professional character of the lawyer, and it is a pleasure to realize that most of these complaints have been closed with fair satisfaction to the complainant and with the appreciation and, in some cases, thanks of the lawyer complained of. Among these nineteen complaints there are two in which it appears that the men complained of were not admitted to the bar in this State. Your

Committee declines jurisdiction in such cases, but with recommendation to the complainant or his counsel that the laws of Michigan furnish a remedy, i. e., the statute prohibiting the practice of the law by persons who are not duly authorized, (being Section 12,056 of the compiled laws of 1915, as amended by the Public Acts of 1919, of page 552 thereof). Your Committee trusts that the prosecuting attorneys in our several counties are enforcing the statute.

Your Committee has, in pursuance with the practice first adopted two years ago, referred to the officers of the County Bar Association complaints affecting the character of members of that bar when this course seemed likely to result well for the profession. Of course this means that there should be a responsible organization of the local bar. This condition exists in many of the counties of the State, and the response to appeals from your Committee of this nature has been gratifying.

The files of your Committee covering these nineteen complaints suggest that it is the collection agencies (rather than clients) that value the service which a Grievance Committee can render, because a majority of these complaints come from these agencies. The report of this Committee at the Annual Meeting of the Association in June, 1921, referred at some length, with recommendations, to this aspect of the commercial law business. While your Committee has refused to act as a gratuitous collection agency for companies which usually have guaranteed the fidelity of members of the bar, it has in the interest of the profession and of the lawyer in question, endeavored to bring about an adjustment of the differences between the parties, and not without some large measure of success.

Calling your attention again to the two statutes enacted by the 1923 legislature, to which reference was made in the Annual Report of the Committee of July, 1923, it is our recommendation that the Association formally entrust to some appropriate Committee of the Association each of these statutes with instructions to aid the proper authorities concerned in the administration thereof with the carrying out of the spirit of the statutes.

This would mean the co-operation of the profession, first: with the Attorney General in the enforcement of Act No. 4, of the Public Acts of 1923, whereby proceedings in disbarment were placed exclusively in charge of the Attorney General; and second, the Clerk of the Supreme Court in the application of Act No. 103, of the

Public Acts of 1923, which provides for a reliable and exclusive roll of attorneys in this State.

Your Committee has at this time no further recommendation to make on matters within its province.

Respectfully submitted,

CLARENCE A. LIGHTNER, Chairman.
ROGER I. WYKES

JOHN H. FARLEY

Committee on Grievances

Michigan State Bar Association.

REPORT OF TREASURER OF MICHIGAN STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, 1924

To the Officers and Members:

I herewith submit my report of the receipts and disbursements for the year ending September 3rd, 1924:

[blocks in formation]

Sept. 20-No. 346, Benj. P. Merrick, expense.....
Sept. 20-No. 347, Handerlink & Luther, Stenographer.
Sept. 28-No. 348, The Ann Arbor Press, Printing...........
Sept. 28-No. 349, E. R. Sunderland, expense....

69.10

160.35

1,355.29

6.00 $4,809.34

.$ 167.50

98.00

576.53

10.65

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »