REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION AND ADMISSION TO THE BAR. To the American Bar Association: The Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar begs leave to submit the following report: The object of the American Bar Association as stated in its Constitution is 1. To advance the science of jurisprudence. 2. To promote the administration of justice. 3. To promote uniformity of legislation throughout the union. 4. To uphold the honor of the profession of the law. 5. To encourage cordial intercourse among the members of the American Bar. Of all the problems with which the Association has to deal, that which is assigned to the consideration of this committee is certainly the most fundamental and most important. How can the American Bar "better advance the science of jurisprudence than by using its influence to make the American law schools the best possible nurseries of legal learning? How can it better "promote the administration of justice" than by seeing to it that only thoroughly trained and competent lawyers are permitted to practise law? And how can it better "uphold the honor of the profession" than by insisting that all its members shall be honorable and learned men, and that none others shall be admitted to the Bar in any state of these United States? The other objects of the Association-"The securing uniformity of legislation," and "the encouragement of cordial intercourse among the members of the American Bar "-shrink in importance when compared with the supreme and most urgent duty which rests at all times upon this Association, to insist upon correct standards on the part of the law schools of the United States, and on the part of the Boards of Law Examiners and those charged in any state with the responsibility of admitting to the Bar. The work which this Association has already accomplished in these respects has been notable, and constitutes not the least creditable of what has been achieved. The legal profession may congratulate itself on the fact that a larger proportion of college trained men enter it in the United States than enter the medical profession or the ministry. The American colleges in the early history of the country were founded to train men for the ministry. Harvard College originally established to educate ministers, now gives to that profession, according to statistics recently obtained by the United States Bureau of Education, barely two per cent of her graduates. Yale, begun under similar impulses, now contributes a meager three per cent. The statistics show that at Harvard the ministry yielded the leadership to law after the Revolutionary War, and that law remained the dominant profession of Harvard graduates until 1880, when business took the lead. At Yale, the ministry, it is shown, competed successfully with law until after the middle of the nineteenth century, when law took the ascendency, and kept it until 1895, when it was displaced by business. At the University of Pennsylvania, where one-fourth of the graduates used to go into the ministry, now about one-fiftieth do so. This information is derived from a bulletin on "Professional Distribution of Ministry and College Graduates," just issued by the Bureau of Education. A final summary of 37 representative colleges shows that teaching is now the dominant profession of college graduates, with 25 per cent; business takes 20 per cent; law, which took one-third of all the graduates at the beginning of the nineteenth century, now claims but 15 per cent; medicine takes between six and seven per cent, and seems to be slightly on the decline; engineering is slowly going up, but still takes only three or four per cent; while the ministry, with its present five or six per cent of the total, has reached the lowest mark for that profession in the two and a half centuries of American college history. While we may regret that the proportion of college graduates entering the legal profession has declined greatly since the beginning of the nineteenth century, yet it must be a source of satisfaction to us, as a profession, that the proportion of collegebred men entering the law is still so greatly in excess of those entering the rival professions. But the fact that the proportion of such men coming into the law is so much less at the beginning of the twentieth century than it was at the beginning of the nineteenth century should strengthen our determination to insist upon a more thorough training of the men who come to the Bar. Unless the profession in America is willing to surrender the proud position it has held in this country, it must not allow other professions to set their standard of general culture and of professional attainments higher than we set ours. Indeed, it is evident that already the medical profession is keenly alive to the importance of a high standard of education for those who are entering that profession, and that they are even now requiring a longer period of professional study and a more extended preparatory training than the legal profession demands at the present time. In some of the states we are demanding a like preparatory training, but in no state are we requiring a like professional training. In the report which this committee submitted to the Association in 1907, the committee recommended the adoption of the following resolutions: Resolved, That the American Bar Association recommends the Bar Associations in those states and territories in which the requirement has not yet been established, to take action at an early day to secure the adoption of a rule making it a necessary condition of admission to the Bar that the candidate shall have an education equivalent at least to that required for graduation from a high school within the state or territory in which the application for admission is made. Resolved, That in approving a high school education as a minimum requirement in general graduation, the American Bar Association is not to be understood as holding the opinion that such education is fully adequate to the needs of those who are to practise law. On the contrary, this Association entertains the opinion that the interests of the profession and of the state would be promoted if all candidates for admission to the Bar should be required to have an education equivalent at least to two years of a college course. (Reports A. B. A., 1907, p. 589.) The consideration of the resolutions was postponed one year when they were adopted, and without any opposition. (Reports A. B. A., 1908, p. 19.) Opposition was made to certain recommendations contained in another resolution concerning night schools, although that was but slight and ineffective. It is a notable fact that this Association four years ago expressed the opinion, without the dissent of a single member, that the interests of the profession and of the state would be promoted if all candidates for admission to the Bar were required to have an education equivalent at least to two years of a college course. This Association, acting on the recommendation of this committee, some years ago adopted the following: Resolved, That the American Bar Association approves a rule requiring candidates for admission to the Bar to study law for three years if graduates of law schools, and for four years if not. (See Proceedings, 1907, p. 589, and Proceedings, 1908, p. 19.) The committee believes now, and it believed then, although it did not think the time had then come for saying so, that all candidates for admission to the Bar might well be required to be graduates of a recognized law school having a three years' course of study for the degree of Bachelor of Laws. This Association has again and again gone on record expressing its conviction that the best place in which to study law is in a law school. There can be no controversy at this late day in this body over the question whether one should study law in a law school rather than in an office. There is no necessity for explaining again the reasons which years ago led this Association to take the action it did on this subject. The committee desires, however, to direct the attention of the Association to some of the reasons which have led to the recommendation now submitted. Before stating those reasons it may be well to remind the Association that in every state in the union, with two or three possible exceptions, the law requires that before a person can be licensed to practice medicine he must have been graduated from a reputable medical school. In most of the states the law defines what is meant by a "reputable" medical school. In New York, before one can become a doctor, a dentist, a pharmacist, a veterinarian, or even a drug clerk, he must have graduated from the professional school. In the State of Wisconsin, in which this meeting is held, no person can practise medicine or dentistry unless he has taken a full course in a professional school of prescribed standing. This has been the rule throughout the country for many years. The doctors, dentists, and pharmacists are setting a higher standard for their professions than the lawyers are for theirs. It is fair to ask the question whether the lawyers should be satisfied to have it so, and whether we should be content to have the standard lower for law than for medicine? The committee is prepared to answer that question with a decided negative. In doing so we do not for a moment lose sight of the difference between the subjects taught in medical schools and in law schools, and the difference in the teaching, and the clinics and laboratories. It may be objected that to require a law school education is oppressive, imposing heavy expense, and that its effect will be to deter many from entering the profession. Exactly the same argument would apply to the rule which has been established in the case of medical practitioners. Is there any reason why it should be cheap to became a lawyer and expensive to become a physician? And if a man is to be permitted to enter upon the practice of the law before he has been properly trained for the discharge of his duties, docs he not become a cheap lawyer, hindering the administration of justice by his blunders? If the effect of the requirement proposed shall be to deter some from entering the profession will not the country be the better off? A Justice of the Supreme Court said some years ago, in speaking before the Bar Association, that it would be a blessing to the profession and to the community if a deluge could engulf one-half of those who hold a license to practise law. His opinion was based on a wide experience, and was based on exceptional |