Bomberger, Louden L.

English

Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law

Indiana Law JournalVolume 13 | Issue 3 Article 32-1938Some Problems of the Indiana BarLouden L. BombergerIndiana State Bar AssociationFollow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/iljPart of the Legal Profession CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law SchoolJournals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted forinclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of DigitalRepository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contactwattn@indiana.edu.Recommended CitationBomberger, Louden L. (1938) "Some Problems of the Indiana Bar," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 13 : Iss. 3 , Article 3.Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol13/iss3/3SOME PROBLEMS OF THE INDIANA BARBy LOUDEN L. BOMBERGER *All competent observers agree that there are four essen-tials to assure the perpetuation of the Bar in its proper placeas one of the great professions. These are:1. High standards of preparation and admission.2. An efficient method of control and discipline.3. The protection of the Bar and the public from theunauthorized practice of law.4. The establishment and maintenance of a high degreeof respect for courts and lawyers in their role as ministersof justice.The first essential has received proper, though belated, at-tention in Indiana, and we may view with satisfaction theadvancement of our requirements for admission from one ofthe lowest to a place among the highest. The superioraptitude and training evinced by the young men coming to theBar fully justify the fixing of high standards; that theseyounger men have also an exalted idealism that will promotethe public welfare must be granted.In the second essential, that of discipline, our system isgrossly inadequate. We have archaic and absurd statutoryprovisions, which not only permit the bringing of unjustcharges, accompanied by damaging publicity, but hamper thedetection and punishment of unprofessional conduct and leaveit to the vagaries of juries to determine whether or not theguilty shall be chastised. Comparatively few evil-doers con-tinue to taint the whole profession. Nothing short of givingto the Supreme Court complete authority to discipline themembers of the Bar will assure a just and uniform methodof dealing with the problem. Fundamentally, the SupremeCourt must be permitted to determine who shall be upon itsroster of counselors. The whole question is essentially onefor the judicial branch alone.* Of the Hammond Bar and President of the Indiana State Bar Association.266SOME PROBLEMS OF THE INDI1NA BARThe third point relates to the manner in which the publicprobably suffers the greatest injury. The unauthorized prac-tice of the law is likely to be an expensive and disappointingexperience for the laymen whose interests are involved.Moreover, such practice is a contempt of Court and anaffront to the profession. In making provision for adequatecontrol of this evil, the law of Indiana is worse than obsolete.Finally, the assurance of the maintenance of the professionof the law in its essential and honorable place of service andinfluence depends upon the respect which the public has forcourts and lawyers. That such respect is rapidly diminish-ing, and in some cases has reached the vanishing point, admitsof no debate. It has been the subject of learned papers, ex-tended conferences, innumerable plans and proposals, for atleast a generation. But respect for our profession cannot bedistilled out of public sentiment by any process of alchemy,nor forced into it by any pressure of propaganda. It musthave its origin and its growth in the rendition of the highesttype of service- by thoroughly trained lawyers, subject tojudicial scrutiny and control, and by those only who respectour calling as a great profession, and not a convenient busi-ness enterprise, to the exclusion of those not authorized toundertake the relation of attorney and client.The foregoing outlines the problem. Many answers havebeen proposed; some answer must be accepted.Twenty states have resorted to the Integration of the Bar;some by legislative acts, others by order of the SupremeCourt. Voluntary Bar Associations of seventeen other stateshave approved it. Integration simply means all-inclusive. Itneed not alarm. If it is good for forty per cent of ourlawyers to be in an Association, to the advantage of the peo-ple whose interests they serve, it should be good for the othersixty per cent of the Bar, and proportionately beneficial tothe public interest.If it be unfair for an organized minority to speak fdr thewhole Bar, it is equally unfair for the unorganized majorityto thwart progress by indifference or opposition. Spokesmenfor the Bar should give expression to the will of a majority268 INDIANA LAW JOURNALof all. Until everyone takes his part in deciding what themajority wills, those who speak for the organization mayrightfully insist upon weight for their words out of proportionto their numbers.The Integrated Bar does not destroy individual initiative,nor fix fees, nor otherwise impinge upon the liberties of itsmembers. On the contrary, it consolidates our forces andcombines our energies only as they need be a unit for meet-ing and solving problems profession-wide in their significanceand effect. It connotes a truly independent judicial branchof the government, with the Supreme Court as the logicaldirecting and controlling head. To -deny the Court controlof its officers is to deny it that independence so zealouslychampioned for the executive and legislative branches ofgovernment and to imply an inadequacy which history refutes.INDIANA LAW JOURNALPublished Bi-Monthly October to August, inclusive, by theIndiana State Bar AssociationOFFICERS AND BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE INDIANASTATE BAR ASSOCIATION.................................................. H am m ondLouden L. Bomberger, President ....................William H. Hill, Vice-President ...................Thomas C. Batchelor, Secretary-Treasurer...... VincennesIL - . . -............................... .*....;.........n.Lu lapOi l5BOARD OF MANAGERS1st DistrictW. J. Murray, Indiana Harbor2nd DistrictJoseph A. Andrews, Lafayette3rd DistrictAaron H. Huguenard, South Bend4th DistrictDan M. Link, Auburn5th DistrictDonald F. Elliott, Kokomo6th DistrictJohn M. McFadden, Rockville7th DistrictDonald A. Rogers, Bloomington8th DistrictJohn M. Paris, New Albany9th DistrictT. Harlan Montgomery, Seymour10th DistrictWilbur F. Pell, Shelbyvillelth DistrictJonas P. Walker, Greenfield12th DistrictCarl Wilde, IndianapolisMember-at-Large-Albert H. Cole, PeruALFRED EVENS, EditorTHOMAS C. BATCHELOR, Business ManagerRobert C. BrownMilo J. BowmanBernard C. GavitFaculty Board of EditorsFFHugh E. Willisowler V. Harperrank E. Horackames J. RobinsonStudent Board of EditorsCharles Dunn Leist, ChairmanHerbert Joseph Bacher Robert Egan MeyersJohn William Christensen Frank Louis MiklozekDavid Moie Cook William Edward OsburnJames Merrill Crum Robert Kent RyanHenry Aaron Fleck Mildred Jane WaldenIsadore Krieger Richey Wayne WhitesellThe Indiana State Bar Association does not assume collective responsibility formatter signed or unsigned in this issue.269 '.............................................

Some Problems of the Indiana Bar

https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4522&context=ilj

Some Problems of the Indiana Bar

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law