A JOURNAL ABOUT LAW, LAWYERS AND LAW BOOKS ISSUED AT INTERVALS BY BANCROFT-WHITNEY COMPANY No. 1 SAN FRANCISCO MAY 1920 Upholding the Standard of the Bar By CHIEF JUSTICE ANGELLOTTI of the California Supreme Court Verdicts and the High Cost of Living Teaching Pleading and Practice Judgments Declaratory of Rights Curbing Automobile Thieves Interference of Labor Organizations Sparks from the Judicial Anvil Notes and Miscellany "On April 18, 1906, the date of the great fire, the legal fraternity of this country was indebted to us in a sum in excess of $200,000. The fire destroyed all of our books of accounts. The lawyers of San Francisco having lost their entire libraries were absolved of their indebtedness to us, amounting to about $30,000.00 This left an amount due from outside lawyers of from $170,000.00 to $175,000.00. Having no lists of patrons we sent a circular letter to the lawyers named in Martindale's Legal Directory, advising them of our loss and asking for information as to their indebtedness to us. The responses to this circular were so prompt and so gratifying that we think the legal profession should know that of this total indebtedness, of say $175,000.00, nearly $150,000.00 has already been reported to us, and we are receiving advices every day from parties who had not previously answered our circular asking about their indebtedness. It is but right to say that some of the San Francisco attorneys declined to accept the cancellation of their accounts and have paid same. Let it be known to the world that the legal profession is made up of men of the highest honor." BANCROFT-WHITNEY CO. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA L 758 Upholding the Standard of the Bar What California Has Done to Keep Unfit Persons Out of the A By Frank M. Angellotti Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California T the last session of the Legislature a most material change was made in the law relative to admission to the bar of this State. Theretofore examinations for admission were conducted by the three District Courts of Appeal in their respective districts, and applicants on license from other States were admitted on motion of some member of the bar, with very little opportunity to the court to ascertain as to the antecedents of the applicant. By the law enacted at that session, while the matter of formal admission was left in the hands of the courts, a board of bar examiners, to consist of three lawyers to be appointed by the Supreme Court, was created, and it was provided as to persons not holding a license from another State that no person can be admitted except after three years' study, and upon examination by this board and favorable report therefrom, and that unless otherwise ordered by the court in a particular case, no person can be admitted on license from another State except after reference of his application to the board and a favorable report therefrom. change was made in our law as the result of very diligent work carried on by the bar through several years, the California State Bar Association having recommended something of this kind year after year, and having followed up its recommendations by earnest effort at session after session of the Legislature. This The new system, a distinct improvement on our old system, has been in operation less than a year. The Supreme Court appointed as the first members of this board Judge M. C. Sloss, former member of the Court; Mr. Charles A. Shurtleff, former president of the San Francisco Bar Association, and Mr. Warren Gregory. These gentlemen are universally known as entertaining the highest possible conception of the functions of a lawyer, and as realizing the necessity of maintaining a very high standard on the part of the applicants, both in point of knowledge and character. Except that a District Court of Appeal may in a particular case, for good reasons shown, dispense with a reference of an application for admission on license from another State, no person is now admitted to practice in this State unless this board approves the application, and the names of the members of the present board constitute a guaranty that the approval is no mere formal matter. It will be the duty of the Supreme Court to see that the |