Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

barristers. The admission, however, is subject to the approval of the benchers of the Inn, and they refuse their consent to persons engaged in trade, to those who have taken Holy Orders, to those whose names have not been struck off the rolls of attorneys to Parliamentary agents, and barristers' clerks. It is also understood that they will refuse their consent to any one of whom they have information that he is an unfit person for the profession through some moral disqualification, and from the decision of the benchers refusing admission to any person there is no appeal. There is still no opportunity of reviewing these decisions, notwithstanding the strong recommendations to this effect of the Common Law Commissioners in their 6th Report, 1834. It is still matter entirely within the discretion of the benchers who happen to be present at the time of the application for admission, whether they will consent or no, or what, if any, moral or other qualification they will require.

The student once admitted, three years must elapse before he can be called to the Bar-years which are presumed to be passed in study; but during which, all that is required by the Inns of Court is that he should be present at a certain number of dinners in each term, and attend a certain number of lectures, which latter may be dispensed with, if he prefer running the chance of passing an examination. Except this, which is voluntary, there is no qualification in legal attainments required at the call to the Bar. The Inns of Court, therefore, do not in any way guarantee that their members are in any way fitted for the confidence of the attorneys or the public, in respect of knowledge of the law, or even that they are not absolutely ignorant of the subjects requisite for their profession.

This is still the case, notwithstanding the unanimous Report of a Royal Commission eight years ago, of which the present Lord Chancellor, the present Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, Mr. Justice Keating (then all practising

at the Bar), Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood, Sir J. Coleridge, the Right Hon. Joseph Napier, and, I may add, among others, Sir J. Shaw Lefevre, were membersand who were of opinion that, “as regarded the intellectual qualifications and professional knowledge of a barrister, there was not such security as the community was entitled to require." The scheme which they recommended has not been adopted, and nothing whatever has been done. Objection may, however, again be taken at the call to the Bar, to the moral qualifications of the student, and the benchers may, if they see good reason, refuse to call him to the Bar. From this decision of the benchers there is an appeal to the judges, but there is no prescribed mode of hearing the candidate before the benchers, or of taking and recording the evidence produced before them. They are simply required to give a certificate of their reasons for refusing to call the appellant to the Bar.

The barrister thus called to the Bar is admitted at once to all the privileges of the profession. He has, in common with other barristers, the exclusive right of appearing for and addressing the judge on behalf of suitors in the Superior Courts; and he has further the privilege, not enjoyed by any other class I believe in the country, of not being liable for any breach of contract, or for any act of negligence in the exercise of his profession, unless such act be tainted with mala fides. On the other hand, he has no legal remedy for the recovery of his fees; and, according to the recent decision of the Common Pleas, it is not competent for him to enter into any contract for payment by his client with respect to litigation, either before, during, or after such litigation. He still, however, continues under the authority of the Inn to which he has been called, and is liable to expulsion from that Inn and from the exercise of his profession, at the instance of the benchers of his Inn; or he may have his professional and moral conduct inquired into by the benchers, and sub

jected to their censorial remarks. The Serjeants-at-law must be excepted from this statement. This ancient body, who for upwards of 600 years, and till within a few years ago, had the exclusive right of pleading in the Court of Common Pleas, is not subject to the authority of the Inns of Court. From the time of receiving his patent from the Crown, which is given only on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the serjeant ceases to be a member of his former Inn. The receipt of the patent was, in ancient times, celebrated with great formality and by a feast in the Inn to which he belonged, lasting for seven days. I cannot ascertain that the serjeants are subject to any rules or discipline of their fellow-serjeants, and there is no precedent for any inquiry into the conduct of one of their members, probably because there never has been cause for such inquiry in that most honourable body. But as the serjeants have lost their exclusive privileges and retain only a certain precedence at the Bar, the dignity is not so much coveted as that of Queen's Counsel; and if it were not that the dignity is not given as a reward for political services, it is not more unlikely that there should arise a necessity for inquiry, than in the case of Queen's Counsel, and it would be well if doubts on this point were set at rest. The judges are all members of Serjeants' Inn, and it is there that they meet to hear cases of appeal from members of the Inns of Court.

I can find no record of any rules laid down by the Inns of Court for the observance by their members who are barristers, and I believe none such exist; nor is there any definition of the particular acts or conduct which will render a barrister liable to expulsion or to the censure of his Inn. It is understood that any gross misconduct connected with his profession, or of such a nature outside his profession, as shows him to be unworthy of trust, will render him thus liable, and also any notorious and continued breaches of professional etiquette. But to what extent this misconduct must be carried before the

benchers will act, is quite undefined and unknown ;* nor are there any well-known or defined rules of etiquette for the guidance of members of the Bar. The Inns of Court are in the nature of a forum domesticum, and may inquire into any matter or conduct of their members; and may censure or expel any member, subject, as before, to an appeal to the judges. But it is matter of grave doubt whether there is an appeal, except in the case of disbarment.

The benchers of the four Inns of Court have, from time immemorial, been self-electing bodies, and unrestricted, I believe, as to numbers. It has been usual of late, almost as a matter of course, to elect any member of the Inn who has been called to the bar as a Queen's Counsel; but if three of the benchers present object, the candidate is not elected ;t and there are cases in which the newly-made Queen's Counsel has not solicited the honour. The benchers thus elected vary from about twenty in Gray's Inn to about sixty in Lincoln's Inn. As regards the Bar and the public, the only duties of any importance which these benchers have to perform are those before alluded to of admitting candidates as students, calling them to the Bar, and exercising a certain control over them when called.

* In the case of Seymour v. Butterworth, quoted at length in the February Number of the Law Magazine for this year, p. 312, Chief-Justice Cockburn thus charged the jury: "I take it to be beyond dispute that if the conduct of a member of an Inn of Court is such as to be unworthy of a gentleman and a member of the profession, he is within the jurisdiction of that forum. We hear of charges in the army of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman; and although there may be no breach of military discipline, yet the breach of individual honour is held to be a sufficient ground for inquiry and for such animadversion as the case may call for. In like manner, if the conduct of a member of the Bar is such as to be unworthy of a barrister, and unworthy of a gentleman, that again is always considered to be a proper matter to be inquired into by the benchers of an inn of court." With all respect for the opinion thus expressed, I venture to say that there is among benchers of the Inns, as also among members of the Bar, great difference of opinion as to the extent of the authority of the Inns of Court; many are of opinion that they have no right to inquire into any act of a member unless it is connected closely with his practice in the profession, while others think that such inquiries should extend to all acts or conduct of a member even beyond his practice in the profession, if they be such as, in the ordinary sense, are unworthy of a gentleman.

† At Lincoln's Inn the majority of benchers present decide.

Beyond these functions, which do not, as now performed, entail much labour upon them, they have no others than to administer their ample funds and revenues, which they have proved before the Commission of 1855 to be no more than sufficient to maintain their libraries, chapels, gardens, and lecturers.*

In what manner the inquiries into the conduct of members of the Inn are carried out by the benchers is matter of gravest concern both to the profession and to the public. It is understood that such inquiries often take place in an informal manner after dinner, and before such of the benchers as may happen to be present; that evidence is taken by a short-hand writer; that counsel are sometimes heard for the member whose conduct is in question; and that the inquiries are strictly private. They have not, however, it would seem, the power of examining on oath, or of compelling the production of witnesses or documents, nor any of the powers which are ordinarily vested in a Court of Justice. It is uncertain whether they have even the power of questioning a barrister summoned before them as to any alleged act or practice, or of demanding from him an explanation. In the absence of any authority upon this subject, or of any annals of the Inns of Court, open to inspection, we have to fall back upon a casual account of their proceedings, such as has been presented to us in the recent trial arising out of Mr. Seymour's case. Though the circumstances of that case were most peculiar, no one, I think, can come to any other conclusion from it than that, as now constituted, the tribunal or parliament of benchers fails in the qualifications necessary for conducting such important

* I find in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1855, the income of the four Inns of Court amounted in the aggregate, in 1854, to £57,957 3s. 6d., of which about £36,000 was derived from rents and dividends. The expenditure on their libraries was £2,122; on their chapels, £2,328; lecturers and studentships about £2,000; interest on mortgages £1,300. The remainder was spent in repairs, in their establishments, and in their kitchens. I would suggest that, as a great additional convenience to barristers and students, the libraries should be kept open at least as long as it is light, instead of being closed at 4 p.m., even though this might necessitate the further expense of assistant librarians.

« AnteriorContinuar »