that it may be reformed; you shall not wittingly, willingly, or knowingly pro- mote, sue, or procure to be sued, any false or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same; you shall delay no man for lucre or malice, but shall act in the office of attorney within the court, according to your best learning and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to your client. So help you God.39
The oath no longer required attorneys to demean themselves. In 1919, the legislature enacted a statute on disbarment. Complaints for disbarment were to be presented to a justice of the Su- preme Court, when the Court was not in session, and the justice was authorized to make orders for notice to the respondent, so that the case was ready for the next ses- sion of the Court.40
The justices could ap-
point a committee to investigate the charg- es, and report what was found. These laws remained in effect until 1978, when they were repealed.41
By that time, the Code of
Professional Responsibility was in effect for six years, the 1974 constitutional amend- ments for four years, and the system for the regulation of attorneys had matured. There are no official, published records of disbarments by the Supreme Court or county courts before 1895. There is one item before that time in a county history of Windham County, noting that between 1804 and 1840, the Windsor County Bar As- sociation recommended the disbarment of two attorneys for violating the rules against exorbitant fees, which the Court granted.42 The attorneys’ names were not listed in the report, however. Today, fee-setting by at- torneys might raise antitrust or consumer fraud concerns, but originally fees were set by legislation. The first act of the first legis- lature set attorney’s fees.43 The disbarment and regulation of law- yers was not publicized in early days, per- haps to avoid embarrassing the profession. Individuals would simply move to another state or retire. The county court records, now being processed at the State Archives, will reveal more details about that history.
The Vermont Bar Association Committee on Professional Conduct
The Vermont Bar Association was formed in 1878. The profession was not new, but a statewide organization was. There had been county bar associations from the be- ginning of the century. The first VBA con- stitution provided that all members of the bar who had received notice of the first meeting, and attended, were members by signing the roll and paying the admis- sion fee. Any other member of the bar in good standing could be admitted if nom-
www.vtbar.org
inated by the committee on admissions, and elected at a regular or special meet- ing of the association, but not if ten mem- bers voted in the negative.44
indication that the bar association was not going to be open to any lawyer.45
That is the first This il-
But the courts depended on the Association in matters of discipline before 1970 more than it does today. The first VBA constitution required the appointment of a standing Committee on Professional Conduct, which would provide a report at each annual meeting.47
It also
provided that, “Any member may be sus- pended or expelled for misconduct in his relations to the association, or in his pro- fession, by vote of the association, on the recommendation of the committee on pro- fessional conduct.”48
The committee was
not active for the first several years, and the first time a report of the committee was called for, at the 1891 annual meeting, the president recognized Charles Prouty, a Newport attorney, to report to the Associa- tion. “Well, sir,” said Prouty, “I didn’t know that there was a committee, or that I was chairman, and if I knew now what sort of a report is expected to be made I would try and make it. I don’t know the scope of the committee; no member here requires to be told of his professional conduct; if there is, we had better get rid of him.”49
Prouty
went on to report that no charges of un- professional conduct had been preferred to the committee during the past year. Year after year, the committee either made no report or reported no activity. In 1908, the committee proposed a Code of Ethics for the profession, but it was tabled until the following year, when it was adopted.50
The Code was not punitive
in tone, as the later Code and Rules would be. It was more ethics than a prescription for sanctions, tending toward what has re- cently been called “Professionalism.” The Code contained fifty-six paragraphs and covered subjects such as candor and fit- ness, a rule against disparaging members of the profession, how far an attorney may go in supporting a cause, the prohibition of an attorney from attacking his own in- struments and conveyances, and the need to avoid making bold assurances to clients. The Code treated the “Duties of Attor- neys to Courts and Judicial Officers” first, and began with the thought, “Bad opinion of the incumbent [judicial officer], howev- er well founded, can not excuse the with- holding of the respect due the office while administering its decisions.” It concluded that, as a rule, attorneys should “refrain
THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • FALL 2013 11
lustrates the dichotomy—lawyers were ad- mitted to practice by the county and Su- preme courts—but they were subsequently added to the rolls of the Association only by nomination. Vermont never linked the courts with the Association, as in most oth- er states.46
Ruminations: The Great Falls
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40