mote the recognition and adoption of the highest possible standards in Legal Ethics and thereby elevate the morals of the legal profession. In the exercise, however, of the power conferred by the Legislature upon this Court to prescribe rules for the admission of attorneys and counsellors at law it has never yet been deemed proper to exact any statement under oath from candidates for admission, except statements of fact in regard to the past performance of required conditions. Nothing in the nature of a promissory oath, such as is contemplated by the last clause of your proposed amendment, has ever been prescribed by the rules, nor have attorneys in this State ever been required to take any promissory oath except the oath of office prescribed in the State Constitution. Serious doubt is entertained by some members of the Court as to whether any other promissory oath can be exacted from attorneys, even by the Legislature itself; and all are agreed that even if this can be done it should be done by the Legislature and not by the Court of Appeals. The language of the statute empowering the Court of Appeals to make rules for the admission of attorneys and counsellors does not, we think, contemplate the exercise by this Court of the power to prescribe what is in reality a very important addition to the attorney's official oath.

"For these reasons the Judges of the Court of Appeals find it impossible to take the action requested by the New York State Bar Association. They will gladly co-operate, however, in any way within their power in the praiseworthy movement on the part of the Association to inculcate the observance of the highest ethical standards in the profession of the law. Respectfully yours,

EDGAR M. CULLEN,
Chief Judge."

It was understood that a revision of the Rules of the Court of Appeals was under consideration and that the

Court and the Board of Law Examiners were giving attention to appropriate treatment in the revision of the subject of legal ethics.

Meantime the effective distribution of the canons was provided by the action of Hon. Francis M. Scott, who had shown marked interest in the subject.

At a convention of the Justices of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court held at the Capitol in Albany April 1, 1910, Judge Scott, speaking on the subject of providing each attorney and counsellor on his admission to the bar with a copy of the Canons of Ethics adopted by the New York State Bar Association, presented the following resolution :

"Resolved, That the suggestion is hereby approved, and that the Clerk of the Appellate Division of each Department is directed to deliver to each person admitted to the Bar, at the time he is sworn in before. the Appellate Division in the several Departments, a copy of the Canons of Ethics adopted by the New York State Bar Association at its annual meeting held in Buffalo on the 28th and 29th of January, 1909."

The resolution was adopted and it was understood that copies for distribution should be furnished by the New York State Bar Association and should be presented by that Association, with the approval of the Justices of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, to each person admitted to the bar.

The Rules of the Court of Appeals for the admission of attorneys and counsellors at law were amended May 17, 1911, to take effect July 1, 1911.

Rule VIII, now in effect, provides that "Every applicant shall be given and required to pass a satisfactory examination in the Canons of Ethics adopted by the

American Bar Association and by the New York State Bar Association."

The Rules of the New York State Board of Law Examiners as amended to take effect on December 1, 1912, and now in effect, make "Legal Ethics " one of the subjects of examination. (See Rule VI.) The Board had, in fact, so treated it ever since the Canons were adopted at Buffalo in January, 1909.

The effect of the approval of the Canons by the Court of Appeals and of the action of the Law Examiners is indicated by a recent letter from Mr. Frank Sullivan Smith, one of the Board of Examiners.

Mr. Smith writes:

"The State Board of Law Examiners examines all applicants for admission to the Bar on the Code of Ethics. The markings upon the questions in Legal Ethics are the same as upon all questions in substantive law. In the beginning we found some law students who had paid no attention to the Canons of Legal Ethics, found our questions difficult and showed considerable irritation, either because the questions were on the examination paper, or because their attention had not been directed to the necessity of preparing themselves, although our instructions to entering students were ample upon the subject.

"As a rule the students show the effect of careful study of the Canons of Ethics and incline in their answers to standards higher than the best members of the Bench and Bar would require. There are, however, exceptions to this, and in some instances applicants have been rejected by reason of failure to show comprehension of the principles of Legal Ethics. Such instances, however, are very rare. * *

"After close observation I am of the opinion that the examination required in Legal Ethics is of para

mount importance in that it brings the attention of the candidates for admission to the Bar directly upon the principles covered by the Canons of Ethics, and leads the student to a proper realization of his duty. when admitted to the Bar to observe a proper ethical standard."

The operation of the resolution adopted by the Appellate Division is summarized in a recent letter from the Secretary of the Association, Mr. Frederick E. Wadhams, for whose interested co-operation your Committee is under constant obligation.

Mr. Wadhams reports as follows:

"Alfred Wagstaff, Clerk of the First Department, writes that he has distributed to each class copies of Canons of Ethics, except the last class, who received none, as he was out of copies. I am sending him 200 copies to-day. (January 7, 1914.)

"Mr. John B. Byrne, Clerk of the Second Judicial Department, Brooklyn, writes that he has followed the custom of delivering a copy to persons when they are admitted, but that he was about out of copies and asked for more. I have sent him an additional supply. Joseph H. Holland, Clerk of the Third Department, informs me that he has followed the directions concerning the distribution of the Canons of Ethics, and he has a supply on hand.

66

"Newell C. Fulton, Clerk of the Fourth Department at Rochester, writes as follows: 'I desire to say that I call the attention of members of each class, and point out the pamphlets; but many of them do not take them away with them, and I do not know what more I can do. I have enough of them for some time yet.' In a later letter Mr. Fulton states that he does deliver a copy to each applicant, but some times they leave them on the desk when they sign the roll."

The latest information received by your Committee is that the State Bar Associations in twenty-nine States have adopted the American Bar Association Code of Legal Ethics. The States are:

Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington.

Of these Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia had originally adopted the Alabama Code, but subsequently substituted that of the American Bar Association. Six other States still have. substantially the Alabama Code - an excellent one and freely used with the consent of its author, Judge Jones, in the preparation of the American Bar Association Code. These six States are Alabama, Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

Two States, California and Connecticut, have incorporated in their Canons most of the principles of the American Bar Association Code, but in the phraseology of their own committees.

The Bar Association of the City of Boston has also adopted the American Bar Association Code, except the contingent fee canon.

It is pertinent to mention here that the special committee of the American Bar Association whose duty was discharged when the Canons were finally adopted at the Seattle meeting in August, 1908, has been succeeded by a standing committee. The Constitution of that association was amended September 1, 1913, so as to include in the annual appointment of committees of five a "Commit