Robinson, Wm. Hedges, Jr.

English

University of Denver

Denver Law Review Volume 26 Issue 6 Article 2 June 2021 What Shall Be Our Course? Wm. Hedges Robinson Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Wm. Hedges Robinson, Jr., What Shall Be Our Course?, 26 Dicta 129 (1949). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Denver Law Review at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. VOL. XXVI JUNE, 1949 NO. 6CalendarJune 29-Denver Bar Association's annual outing at the Park HillCountry Club.July 6, 7, 8 and 9-Annual conference of the Tenth Judicial Circuit,U. S. District Court, Post Office Bldg., Denver.What Shall Be Our Course?By WM. HEDGES ROBINSON, JR.President, Colorado Bar AssociationLast month, I stated that I would report on the judiciary committee,the legislature and the supreme court. I find, however, that the Editorhas obtained articles from Mr. Henry and Mr. Van Cise which coverthis situation so adequately that I need say nothing further.I do wish to point-up the effect of what these men have said. Morethan seventy per cent of all lawyers in the state approved the bar bill. Itdied in committee. A great preponderance of all bar associations andlawyers in the state approved the judiciary reform plan. A major partof this program died in the House. Fifteen thousand dollars and fouryears of hard and extensive work were destroyed in a few months time.This result stresses the need for the bar association to make an un-equivocal choice of its future course of action with respect to publiclegislation. Even if every lawyer made the bar bills a personal matterwith him, fought for those bills with all his strength and all his mind, itstill would not be enough. These are bills which, for the most part, arepublic bills, that is, they benefit the public infinitely more than they do thelawyers. The public must be convinced that these bills are actually forits good.Opponents of good government try to kill effective legislation by at-tempting to show the lawyers' stake in these bills. Our interest is actuallya concern about the proper functioning of our judicial system. On a purelyselfish basis, we should continue to have hearings in county, district andsupreme courts as we are now allowed because it means larger fees tolawyers. On a purely selfish basis, we should not be interested in a judicialcouncil for that might result in reforms which would reduce the cost ofjustice. On a purely selfish basis, what concern is it of individual lawyersDICTAwhether judges are well or poorly paid, have retirement and pension funds?Or why should we care if the public is not interested in adequate disciplinaryprocedure, thorough canons of judicial and professional ethics?The public nature of the bar bills is the very thing that defeated them.While the great majority of lawyers backed the bills and assisted whenevercalled upon, there was not enough drive from all lawyers in each localityand a public appreciation of the value of these bills to enact this legislation.Our experience should teach us that it is useless to expect that bar billshaving a great public interest will secure much consideration unless wehave a complete reorganization of our approach to public legislation.Mr. Van Cise suggests a lobbyist. That is only part of the answer.We need to make the public our active partner in this effort" for goodgovernment. We need a good public relations expert who can start nowto sell the bar program to the people before the 1951 legislature meets.Then when the legislature convenes, we need a full-time man on the jobto guide the bar program through the legislature in the interest of the public.Unless we are willing to go the entire way-good public relations whichembodies public confidence, and a legislative consultant-we should becontent to putter around with minor amendments to the statutes, and notwaste our energies in programs in the public interest.I firmly believe that it is to the lawyers' interest for the Colorado barto unite in a dynamic and aggressive bar association-one that demandsand commands public respect. It should be zealous in protecting the interestof the public in making the process of obtaining justice quicker and cheaper.It must be in a position to insist, effectively, that lawyers and judges adhereto professional morality and act as a unit in matters concerning the courtsand its officers.The choice is that of this association. It should be clear cut anddefinite. There can be no touring down the middle of the road, for trafficflows only on one side or the other.Denver Bar Association Reduces DuesDues for the members of the Denver Bar Association for the fiscalyear beginning July 1, 1949 were reduced by action of the Board of Trusteeson May 2.For members in practice three years or more, the dues were reducedfrom $15 per year to $12.50 per year, and, for members in practice lessthan three years, the reduction was from $7.50 to $6.00 per year.This reduction was made possible by the fact that some of the projectsoriginally proposed and sponsored by the Denver Bar Association have beentaken over on a state-wide basis by the Colorado Bar Association, whosedues for the next ensuing fiscal year are identical with those of the Denverassociation. Dues include subscription costs for Dicta and the weeklyadvance sheets of the Supreme Court opinions.

What Shall Be Our Course?

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5103&context=dlr

What Shall Be Our Course?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver