1 Frost, Robert, “Mending Wall,” in The Poems of Robert Frost 35–36 (New York: Random House, 1946).Google Scholar

2 NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963); Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964); UMW Dist. 12 v. Illinois State Bar Ass'n, 389 U.S. 217 (1967).Google Scholar

3 E.g., the 1962 Arizona constitutional amendment giving real estate brokers and salesmen the right to draft documents connected with real estate transactions. Ariz. Const. art. 26, § 1 (1910, amended 1962). See also Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Quinlan & Tyson, 34 Ill. 2d 116, 214 N.E.2d 771 (1966).Google Scholar

4 These cases and other materials pertaining to unauthorized practice of law are collected in Justine Fischer & Dorothy H. Lachmann, Comps. & eds., Unauthorized Practice Handbook: A Compilation of Statutes, Cases, and Commentary on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1972).Google Scholar

5 “Will Consumers Be Next to Challenge UPL Rules 65 A.B.A.J. 685 (1979).Google Scholar

6 This paper is not intended as a work of legal history, and no attempt has been made, except for some case and statute law, to find and utilize original sources. Instead, readily available secondary sources have been used for the modest purpose of tracing, in a general way, the development of the ideas discussed in the latter part of the paper. Even the case and statute law cited is illustrative in nature; this article is in no sense a comprehensive treatise.Google Scholar

7 Pound, Roscoe, The Lawyer from Antiquity to Modern Times 130 (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co. 1953) [hereinafter cited as Pound]. Pound's statement may be simply an expression of the provincially snobbish notion that law cannot exist without lawyers, a notion that ignores the many cultures and societies in which law clearly does exist without lawyers. Perhaps, though, the laws necessary to complex societies do require lawyers.Google Scholar

8 Warren, Charles, A History of the American Bar 5 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1911) [hereinafter cited as Warren].Google Scholar

9 Pound, 130–35.Google Scholar

10 Warren, 3–4, 60, 62.Google Scholar

11 Pound, 135–42.Google Scholar

12 See discussion Id. at 142–43.Google Scholar

13 Warren, 4–5.Google Scholar

14 Id. at 4.Google Scholar

15 A pettifogger is one who engages in legal chicanery or in quibbling over irrelevancies.Google Scholar

16 See generally Warren, 41–44. See also Pound, 135–38, 142–43.Google Scholar

17 Warren, 41; Pound, 136–37.Google Scholar

18 Warren, 41, 215; Pound, 137. See also James Willard Hurst, The Growth of American Law: The Law Makers 277 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1950) [hereinafter cited as Hurst].Google Scholar

19 Warren, 41–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Id. at 42; Pound, 137–38.Google Scholar

21 Pound, 138; Warren, 42.Google Scholar

22 Warren, 42. See also Pound, 138.Google Scholar

23 Pound, 139–42.Google Scholar

24 Pound, 137.Google Scholar

25 Pound, 135–42.Google Scholar

26 Id. at 142–43; Warren, 41–44. See also 1 Anton-Hermann Chroust, The Rise of the Legal Profession in America 28 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1965) [hereinafter cited as 1 and 2 Chroust].Google Scholar

27 E.g., the Virginia Assembly's Mercenary Attorney Act of 1657, which read in part: “‘[W]hereas there doth much charge and trouble arise by the admittance of attorneys and lawyers through pleading of causes thereby to maintain suites in lawes to the great prejudice and charge of the inhabitants of this collony’…” Warren, 42.Google Scholar

28 Id. at 4, 5, 41.Google Scholar

29 Id. at 41.Google Scholar

30 The Virginia Assembly's Mercenary Attorney Act of 1657. Warren, 42.Google Scholar

31 E.g., the successive Mercenary Attorney Acts. See Pound, 136–38.Google Scholar

32 Id.Google Scholar

33 Pound, 156–63; Warren, 211, 212; Hurst, 277.Google Scholar

34 Warren, 3–4.Google Scholar

35 This process is described generally in Pound, 144–63. A more complete, thorough, and detailed colony-by-colony analysis of the growth of the American bar is to be found in 1 Chroust.Google Scholar

36 Pound, 164.Google Scholar

37 Id. at 164–73.Google Scholar

38 Id.Google Scholar

39 Id.Google Scholar

40 Id. at 143.Google Scholar

41 Id.Google Scholar

42 Id. at 144.Google Scholar

43 Id.Google Scholar

44 See generally 2 Chroust, 131–34.Google Scholar

45 Id. at 132.Google Scholar

46 Id. at 134.Google Scholar

47 Id. at 133. See also Hurst, 278.Google Scholar

48 2 Chroust, 133. Hurst suggests that while these standards might be appropriate to the conditions of 1940, they were decidely inappropriate to the educational conditions of the colonial era. Hurst, 278.Google Scholar

49 2 Chroust, 134; Hurst, 278. See also Hurst's interesting discussion of separation of powers as it related to control over bar admissions. Hurst, 278–79.Google Scholar

50 2 Chroust, 134.Google Scholar

51 Id. at 135.Google Scholar

52 See generally Pound, 177–87, 223–49; 2 Chroust; Hurst, 277.Google Scholar

53 Pound, 181, 186.Google Scholar

54 Id. at 223.Google Scholar

55 Warren, 211.Google Scholar

56 Id.Google Scholar

57 Id. at 212.Google Scholar

58 Id. at 212–19 (footnotes omitted).Google Scholar

59 Id. at 510.Google Scholar

60 Id. at 223–39.Google Scholar

61 E.g., Pound, 177–85; 2 Chroust, 5–28; Hurst, 277.Google Scholar

62 Pound, 177–87. See also 2 Chroust, 18–30.Google Scholar

63 2 Chroust, 69–70; Pound, 227–32, 236–37; Hurst, 277.Google Scholar

64 2 Chroust, 69–71; Pound, 227–32, 236–37; Hurst, 277.Google Scholar

65 Pound, 184.Google Scholar

66 2 Chroust, 30, 38, 49; Pound, 184, 229–30.Google Scholar

67 Pound, 230. See also Hurst, 281–82.Google Scholar

68 Pound, 224–28.Google Scholar

69 Id. at 235–36.Google Scholar

70 Id. at 230.Google Scholar

71 Id. at 231.Google Scholar

72 Id. at 226.Google Scholar

73 For an extended description of the conditions of law practice during this time, together with critical commentary, see 2 Chroust, 92–128; see also Pound, 235–42.Google Scholar

74 See, e.g., Blume, William Wirt, Civil Procedure on the American Frontier, 56 Mich. L. Rev. 161 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 Parow v. Cary, 1 How. Pr. 66 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1844); McKoan v. Devries, 3 Barb. 196 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1848); Weir v. Slocum, 3 How. Pr. 397, 1 Code Rep. 105 (N.Y. 1849); Roy v. Harley, 8 N.Y. Super Ct. 637 (1852); Yorks v. Peck, 31 Barb. 350 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1860); Halsey v. Carter, 29 N.Y. Super. Ct. 535 (1866); Re Pierre Spicer, 1 Tuck. 80 (N.Y. Surrog. 1869). (Cases digested in Frederick C. Hicks & Elliott R. Katz, Unauthorized Practice of Law: A Handbook for Lawyers and Laymen 62, 66–67 (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1934) [hereinafter cited as Hicks & Katz]. see also Smith, Robb v., 4 Ill. (3 Scam.) 46 (1841) (case digested in George E. Brand, ed., Unauthorized Practice Decisions 1 (Detroit: Detroit Bar Association, 1937)); Thorn v. Lawson, 6 Tex. 240 (1851); Rader v. Snyder, 3 W. Va. 413 (1869) (cases digested in Hicks & Katz, 67–68).Google Scholar

76 McWhorter v. Bloom, 3 N.J. Law 134 (1809); Pierson v. Foster, 3 N.J. Law 135 (1809); Hughes v. Mulvey, 3 N.Y. Super. (1 Sand.) 92 (N.Y. 1847); Hall v. Sawyer, 47 Barb. 116 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1866). (Cases digested in Hicks & Katz, 68–69.).Google Scholar

77 Ames v. Gilman, 10 Metc. 239 (Mass. 1845). (Case digested in Hicks & Katz, 86.).Google Scholar

78 Bird v. Breedlove, 24 Ga. 623 (1857). (Case digested in Hicks & Katz, 70.).Google Scholar

79 People v. May, 3 Mich. 598 (1855). (Case digested in Brand, 2.).Google Scholar

80 State Bank v. Bell, 5 Black. 127 (Ind. 1839); Nixon, Ellison & Co. v. Southwestern Ins. Co., 47 111. 444 (1868); Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Homey, 5 Kan. 340 (1870). (Cases digested in Hicks & Katz, 116–117.).Google Scholar

81 Pound, 254. Cf. Hurst, 277. Note that the first Board of Bar Examiners was established in New Hampshire sometime between 1868 and 1878. Hurst, 277.Google Scholar

82 Pound, 253–54.Google Scholar

83 See generally Hurst, 277–85.Google Scholar

84 Pound, 255 [Pound's italics].Google Scholar

85 Id. at 259–78.Google Scholar

86 See Hurst, , 280.Google Scholar

87 The National Conference of Bar Examiners, The Bar Examiner's Handbook 13 (Chicago: National Conference of Bar Examiners, 1968).Google Scholar

88 The states were: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. The territories were: Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, and Oklahoma. Rules for Admission to the Bar in the Several States and Territories of the United States (2d ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1902) [hereinafter cited as Rules for Admission to the Bar].Google Scholar

89 Id.Google Scholar

90 Id.Google Scholar

91 Rules for Admission to the Bar (8th ed., 1915).Google Scholar

92 Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Alaska territory. Id.Google Scholar

93 Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, and Utah. Rules for Admission to the Bar (19th ed., 1932).Google Scholar

94 Georgia and Mississippi.Google Scholar

95 Rules for Admission to the Bar (26th ed., 1939).Google Scholar

96 Hurst, 280.Google Scholar

97 Id. at 314.Google Scholar

98 Id. at 313–14.Google Scholar

99 Id. at 314–19.Google Scholar

100 By 1920 the ratio had fallen to 863 persons to 1 lawyer. Id. at 314.Google Scholar

101 Id. at 313.Google Scholar

102 See text at note 37 supra.Google Scholar

103 Hurst, 319.Google Scholar

104 Id. at 319–20.Google Scholar

105 Bristol, George W., The Passing of the Legal Profession, 22 Yale L.J. 590–613 (1913). See also Trust Companies and the Practice of Law, 68 U. Pa. L. Rev. 356–60 (1920). Cf. Note, What Constitutes the Practice of Law, 31 Harv. L. Rev. 886–89 (1918).Google Scholar

106 E.g., Abbott, William T., The Trust Company—Not a Competitor of the Lawyer, 6 Ill. L. Rev. 73–90 (1911). See also the pre-1929 articles cited in Bibliography of Unauthorized Practice in Hicks & Katz, 172–99.Google Scholar

107 Hicks & Katz, 183.Google Scholar

108 Hurst, 321.Google Scholar

109 Id.Google Scholar

110 Id. at 319.Google Scholar

111 Id. at 323.Google Scholar

112 E.g., 1852 Ala. Code § 729 (current version at Ala. Code § 34–3–6 (1975)); 1861 Colo. Sess. Laws at 197, § 1 (current version at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12–5–101 (1973)); [Hutchinson's] 1848 Miss. Codes. ch. 26, art. 3(14) (current version at Miss. Code § 73–3–43 (1972)); 1861 Wis. Laws ch. 189, § 4 (current version at Wis. Stat. Ann. § 256.30 (West 1971)).Google Scholar

113 1715 Md. Laws ch. 48 (current version at Md. Ann. Code art. 10, § 1 (Cum. Supp. 1979)).Google Scholar

114 E.g., 1861 Colo. Sess. Laws at 197, § 1 (current version at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12–5–101 (1978)).Google Scholar

115 E.g., [Hutchinson's] 1848 Miss. Codes ch. 26, art. 3(14) (current version at Miss. Code Ann. § 73–3–43 (1972)); C.C.P., § 424; 1870–1, ch. 90 (current version at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84–2 (1975)).Google Scholar

116 1880 Cal. Code Am. ch. 35, at 65, § 1 (current version at Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6127 (West 1974)); Colo. L. 05, at 157, § 1 (current version at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12–5–112 (1978)); 1902 Conn. Rev. § 458 (current version at Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 51–88 (West 1958)); 1881 Idaho C.C.P. § 119 (current version at Idaho Code § 3–104 (1979)); 1874 Mar. 28, 1874 Ill. R.S. at 169, § 1 (current version at Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 13, § 1 (Smith-Hurd Cum. Supp. 1979)); 1891 Mass. Acts 418 (current version at Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 221, § 41 (Michie/Law. Co-op 1974)); 1911 Mich. Pub. Acts no. 232, § 1 (current version at Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.901 (1968)); 1906 Miss. Codes § 230 (current version at Miss. Code Ann. § 73–3–55 (1972)); 1919 Mo. Laws § 667 (current version at Mo. Ann. Stat. § 484.020 (Vernon 1949)); 1895 Mont. C. Civ. Proc. En. Sec. 397 (current version at Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 37–61–210 (1979)); 1893 Neb. Laws ch. 1 (current version at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7–101 (1977)); 1909 N.M. Laws ch. 53, § 26 (current version at N.M. Stat. Ann. § 36–2–27 (1978)); 1909 N.Y. Penal Law § 270 (current version at N.Y. Jud. Law § 478 (McKinney Cum. Supp. 1979–80)); 1905 N.D. Sess. Law ch. 50, § 7 (current version at N.D. Cent. Code § 27–11–01 (Cum. Supp. 1979)); 1917 R.I. Pub. Laws ch. 1494, § 1 (current version at R.I. Gen. Laws § 11–27–5 (1969)); 1893 S.D. Sess. Law ch. 21, § 1 (current version at S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 16–16–1 (1979)); Utah 1898 R. S. & 1907 C.L. § 112 (current version at Utah Code Ann. § 78–51–25 (1977)); 1919 Va. Code § 3422 (current version at Va. Code § 54–44 (1978)).Google Scholar

117 E.g., 1874 Mar. 28, 1874 Ill. R.S. at 169, § 1 (current version at Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 13, § 1 (Smith-Hurd Cum. Supp. 1979). Hurst suggests that the broad language of unauthorized practice statutes was chosen not entirely by design, but that it resulted, in part, from the inability of draftsmen to make it any more specific. Hurst, 321.Google Scholar

118 E.g., 1893 S.D. Sess. Law ch. 21, § 1 (current version at S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 16–16–1 (1979)).Google Scholar

119 E.g., 1909 N.Y. Laws ch. 35 (current version at N.Y. Jud. Law §§ 471, 473 (McKinney 1968), 472 (McKinney Cum. Supp. 1979–80)).Google Scholar

120 See 1919 Mo. Laws § 667 (current version at Mo. Ann. Stat. § 484.020 (Vernon 1949)); 1909 N.Y. Laws ch. 483 (current version at N.Y. Jud. Law § 495 (McKinney Cum. Supp. 1979–80)); 1917 R.I. Pub. Laws ch. 1494, § 2 (current version at R.I. Gen. Laws § 11–27–15 (1969)).Google Scholar

121 See Reeves, Knope V., 127 Ala. 216, 28 So. 666 (1900); Ellis v. Bingharn County, 7 Ida. 86, 60 P. 79 (1900); Cobb v. Judge of the Superior Court, 43 Mich. 289, 5 N.W. 309 (1880); In re Bailey, 50 Mont. 365, 146 P. 1101 (1915); In re White, 54 Mont. 476, 171 P. 759 (1918); Kaplan v. Berman, 37 Misc. 502, 75 N.Y.S. 1002 (Sup. Ct. 1902); Harkins v. Murphy & Bolanze, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 568, 112 S.W. 136 (1908). But see Howell v. Mundy, 145 La. 291, 82 So. 274 (1919); Brown v. Guillot, 146 La. 46, 83 So. 373 (1919).Google Scholar

122 E.g., Cook V. Noble, 181 Cal. 720, 186 P. 150 (1919); State v. Bryan, 98 N.C. 644, 4 S.E. 522 (1887).Google Scholar

123 E.g., People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Erbaugh, 42 Colo. 480, 94 P. 349 (1908); People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Taylor, 56 Colo. 441, 138 P. 762 (1914); People v. Schreiber, 250 Ill. 345, 95 N.E. 189 (1911); Commonwealth v. Grant, 201 Mass. 458, 87 N.E. 895 (1909); Buxton v. Lietz, 136 N.Y.S. 829 (Mun. Ct., City of N.Y., 1912), aff'd, 139 N.Y.S. 46 (1913).Google Scholar

124 E.g., Alpers V. Hunt, 86 Cal. 78, 24 P. 846 (1890). See also In re Bailey, 50 Mont. 365, 146 P. 1101 (1915); In re Newman, 172 A.D. 173, 158 N.Y.S. 375 (1916).Google Scholar

125 Smith, Mulligan V., 32 Colo. 404, 76 P. 1063 (1904).Google Scholar

126 Miller, Eley V., 7 Ind. App. 529, 34 N.E. 836 (1893).Google Scholar

127 Alfani, People V., 227 N.Y. 334, 125 N.E. 671, 673 (1919).Google Scholar

128 Lietz, Buxion V., 136 N.Y.S. 829 (Mun. Ct., City of N.Y., 1912). aff'd, 139 N.Y.S. 46 (1913).Google Scholar

129 E.g., People ex rel. Holzman v. Purdy, 162 N.Y.S. 65 (Sup. Ct. 1916). But see Dunlap v. Lebus, 112 Ky. 237, 65 S.W. 441 (1901).Google Scholar

130 In re Ploof Mach. Co., 243 F. 421 (S.D. Fla. 1916).Google Scholar

131 In re Looney, 262 F. 209 (W.D. Tex. 1920).Google Scholar

132 Savings Bank v. Ward, 100 U.S. 195 (1879).Google Scholar

133 E.g., Midland Credit Adjustment Co. v. Donnelly, 219 Ill. App. 271 (1920); Creditors' Nat'l Clearing House, Inc. v. Bannwart, 227 Mass. 579, 116 N.E. 886 (1917).Google Scholar

134 E.g., Creditors' Nat'l Clearing House, Inc. v. Bannwart, 227 Mass. 579, 116 N.E. 886 (1917).Google Scholar

135 E.g., People v. People's Trust Co., 180 A.D. 494, 167 N.Y.S. 767 (1917).Google Scholar

136 In re Bensel, 68 Misc. 70, 124 N.Y.S. 726 (Sup. Ct. 1910), aff'd, 139 A.D. 922, 124 N.Y.S. 1110 (1910); In re Certain Lands, 144 A.D. 107, 128 N.Y.S. 999 (1911), aff'd, 204 N.Y. 625, 97 N.E. 1103 (1912).Google Scholar

137 In re Creditors' Audit & Adjustment Ass'n, 72 Misc. 461, 131 N.Y.S. 263 (1911); Meisel & Co. v. National Jewelers' Bd. of Trade, 90 Misc. 19, 152 N.Y.S. 913, aff'd, 157 N.Y.S. 1133 (1915).Google Scholar

138 Irving v. Neal, 209 F. 471 (S.D.N.Y. 1913).Google Scholar

139 People v. Title Guar. & Trust Co., 180 A.D. 648, 168 N.Y.S. 278 (1917).Google Scholar

140 People v. Title Guar. & Trust Co., 227 N.Y. 366, 125 N.E. 666 (1919).Google Scholar

141 Id. 125 N.E. at 671 (Cardozo, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

142 People v. Title Guar. & Trust Co., 191 A.D. 165, 181 N.Y.S. 52 (1920), aff'd, 230 N.Y. 580, 130 N.E. 901 (1920).Google Scholar

143 United States Title & Guar. Co. v. Brown, 166 A.D. 688, 152 N.Y.S. 470 (1915), aff'd, 217 N.Y. 628, 111 N.E. 828 (1916).Google Scholar

144 In re Kelsey, 186 A.D. 95, 173 N.Y.S. 860 (1919).Google Scholar

145 People ex rel. Floersheimer v. Purdy, 174 A.D. 694, 162 N.Y.S. 70 (1916), rev'd on unrelated ground, 221 N.Y. 481, 116 N.E. 390 (1917).Google Scholar

146 People ex rel. Trojan Realty Co. v. Purdy, 174 A.D. 702, 162 N.Y.S. 56 (1916).Google Scholar

147 Tannenbaum v. Higgins, 190 A.D. 861, 180 N.Y.S. 738 (1920).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

148 In re Pace, 170 A.D. 818, 156 N.Y.S. 641 (1915).Google Scholar

149 In re Associated Lawyers' Co., 134 A.D. 350, 119 N.Y.S. 77 (1909).Google Scholar

150 In re Gill, 104 Wash. 160, 176 P. 11 (1918).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

151 State ex rel. Lundin v. Merchants' Protective Corp., 105 Wash. 12, 177 P. 694 (1919).Google Scholar

152 In re Co-operative Law Co., 198 N.Y. 479, 480, 92 N.E. 15, 16 (1910).Google Scholar

153 See references in note 106 supra.Google Scholar

154 In re Co-operative Law Co., 198 N.Y. 479, 480, 92 N.E. 15, 16 (1910).Google Scholar

155 Id.Google Scholar

156 Id.Google Scholar

157 Id. (emphasis added).Google Scholar

158 Hurst, 323.Google Scholar

159 Id.Google Scholar

160 See generally the annilal reports of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law, published in the A.B.A. Reports, and articles and news items published over this period in the Unauthorized Practice News. (Both works are cited more specifically in notes 162 et seq. infra.).Google Scholar

161 55 A.B.A. Reports 94–95, 476, 480–83 (1930).Google Scholar

162 56 A.B.A. Reports 117–18 (1931).Google Scholar

163 55 A.B.A. Reports (1930) and following years.Google Scholar

164 Unauthorized Prac. News, No. 1, 1934.Google Scholar

165 40 Unauthorized Prac. News, No. 3, 1977. This publication was discontinued in 1977 as a result of a change in Association policy that discontinued all independent publications by ABA committees. Id. at iii.Google Scholar

166 See Hicks & Katz; Lloyd Hale, Unauthorized Practice Source Book (Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1958); Unauthorized Practice Statute Book (Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1961); Stanley A. Bass, Unauthorized Practice Source Book: A Compilation of Cases and Commentary on Unauthorized Practice of the Law (rev. ed. Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1965); Fischer & Lachmann, supra note 5. Note that while all except the first of these compilations were prepared by the American Bar Foundation, they were done at the request, and with the cooperation and help of, the ABA's Standing Committee on Unauthorized Practice of the Law.Google Scholar

167 For a partial bibliography, see Hicks & Katz, 172–99. See also citations under individual subject headings in Hale, supra note 167; Bass, supra note 167; and Fischer & Lachmann, supra note 5.Google Scholar

168 Sixteen of these articles appeared in the ten years from 1931 to 1941 and the rest from 1946 to 1960. The bar, as the nation, was occupied with far weightier concerns during the interim.Google Scholar

169 This is the total count of those articles listed in the Index to Legal Periodicals. There were no doubt others that did not get into the Index.Google Scholar

170 Counted from the Index to Legal Periodicals.Google Scholar

171 36 A.L.R. 533 (1925); 73 A.L.R. 1327 (1931); 84 A.L.R. 749 (1933); 90 A.L.R. 288 (1934); 94 A.L.R. 359 (1935); 100 A.L.R. 236 (1936); 105 A.L.R. 1364 (1936); 106 A.L.R. 548 (1937); 111 A.L.R. 19 (1937); 125 A.L.R. 1173 (1940); 151 A.L.R. 781 (1944); 157 A.L.R. 282 (1945); 157 A.L.R. 522 (1945); 171 A.L.R. 351 (1947); 53 A.L.R.2d 777 (1957); 69 A.L.R.2d 395 (1960).Google Scholar

172 E.g., Kinnane, Charles H., The Threatened Inundation of the Bar, 17 A.B.A.J. 475 (1931); Otterbourg, Edwin M., A Continuing Professional Problem: Ethics and the Unauthorized Practice of the Law, 44 A.B.A.J. 350 (1958).Google Scholar

173 E.g., Jackson, John G., Consolidation of Replies to Unauthorized Practice Questionnaire, with Introductory Note, 20 A.B.A.J. 407 (1934); Clark, Boyle G., Missouri's Accomplishments and Program for Eliminating the Unlawful Practice of Law, 22 A.B.A.J. 9 (1936).Google Scholar

174 E.g., Legal Profession—Practice of Law Defined, 32 Colum. L. Rev. 1250 (1932); 53 A.L.R.2d 777 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

175 E.g., Note, The Practice of Law by Corporations, 44 Harv. L. Rev. 1114 (1931); Quintin Johnstone, The Unauthorized Practice Controversy, a Struggle Among Power Groups, 4 Kan. L. Rev. 1 (1955).Google Scholar

176 E.g., Griswold, Erwin N., A Further Look: Lawyers and Accountants, 41 A.B.A.J. 1113 (1955); Llewellyn, K. N., The Bar's Troubles, and Poultices—and Cures 5 Law & Contemp. Probs. 104 (1938).Google Scholar

177 1933 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 66, §§ 49, 51 (current version at Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann § 32–261 (Cum. Supp. 1979–80)); Con. Gen. Laws 1927, § 8133 (current version at Fla. Stat. Ann. § 454.23 (West 1965)); 1931 Ga. Laws at 191, 194 (current version at Ga. Code Ann. §§ 9–401, –402 (1973)); 1925 Ind. Acts ch. 176, § 1, at 431 (current version at Ind. Code Ann. § 25–5–1–1 (Burn: 1974)); 1940 La. Acts no. 163, §§ 1–6 (current version at La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 37–212 (West Cum. Supp. 1980), –213 (West 1974)); 1954 Me. R.S. ch. 105, § 8 (current version at Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 4, § 807 (1979)); 1935 N.H. 34:1 (current version at N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 311:9 (1966)); 1924 N.J. Laws ch. 138, §§ 1, 6, at 308, 311 (current version at N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:170–78 (1971)); 125 v 253, effective 10–2–53, 1953 H1 (current version at Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4705.01 (Baldwin 1979)); July 12, 1935, P.L. 708, No. 271, § 1 (subsequently Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 1610 (Purdon 1962)) (repealed April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, No. 53, § 2(a), effective June 27, 1978); 1935 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 30, §§ 1, 2 (current version at Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29–302 (1956), –303 (Cum. Supp. 1979)); 1957 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 61, § 1 (current version at Wyo. Stat. § 33–5–117 (1977)).Google Scholar

178 E.g., the older North Carolina statute cited in note 116 supra was supplemented in 1931 by 1931 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 157, § 1 (current version at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84–4 (1975)); the older Rhode Island statute cited in note 115 supra was supplemented in 1935 by 1935 R.I. Pub. Laws ch. 2190, § 1 (current version at R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 11–27–1 to –4, 11–27–6 to -11 (1969)).Google Scholar

179 E.g., 1929 Ark. Acts No. 182, § 1, at 904 (current version at Ark. Stat. Ann. § 25–205 (1962)); 1921 W. Va. Acts ch. 78, § 4a (current version at W. Va. Code § 30–2–5 (1980)).Google Scholar

180 1933 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 66, §§ 49, 51 (current version at Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32–261 (cum. supp. 1979–1980)). See also 1924 N.J. Laws, ch. 138, §§ 1, 6, at 308, 311 (current version at N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:170–78 (1971)).Google Scholar

181 Hicks & Katz, 200–205.Google Scholar

182 Hale, 106–14.Google Scholar

183 People v. Title Guar. & Trust Co., 227 N.Y. 366, 125 N.E. 666 (1919).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

184 See, e.g., In re Opinion of the Justices, 289 Mass. 606, 194 N.E. 313 (1935); People v. Lawyers Title Corp., 282 N.Y. 513, 27 N.E.2d 30 (1940); State Bar Ass'n v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 145 Conn. 222, 140 A.2d 863 (1958).Google Scholar

185 E.g., Title Guar. Co. v. Denver Bar Ass'n, 135 Colo. 423, 312 P.2d 1011 (1957). But see Hobson v. Kentucky Trust Co., 303 Ky. 493, 197 S.W.2d 454 (1946).Google Scholar

186 E.g., Ingham County Bar Ass'n v. Walter Neller Co., 342 Mich. 214, 69 N.W.2d 713 (1955). But see People v. Lawyers Title Corp., 282 N.Y. 513, 27 N.E.2d 30 (1940).Google Scholar

187 E.g., Hulse v. Criger, 363 Mo. 26, 247 S.W.2d 855 (1952). But see Gardner V. Conway, 234 Minn. 468, 48 N.W.2d 788 (1951).Google Scholar

188 E.g., In re Opinion of the Justices, 289 Mass. 606, 194 N.E. 313 (1935). But see Grievance Comm. v. Dean, 190 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Civ. App. 1945).Google Scholar

189 E.g., Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 52 N.E.2d 27 (1943). But see People v. Lawyers Title Corp., 282 N.Y. 513, 27 N.E.2d 30 (1940); People ex rel. Illinois State Bar Ass'n v. Schafer, 404 Ill. 45, 87 N.E.2d 773 (1949).Google Scholar

190 E.g., Cowern V. Nelson, 207 Minn. 642, 290 N.W. 795 (1940); Conway-Bogue Realty Inv. Co. v. Denver Bar Ass'n, 135 Colo. 398, 312 P.2d 998 (1957). But see In re Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen, 13 Ill. 2d 391, 150 N.E.2d 163 (1958).Google Scholar

191 E.g., Arkansas Bar Ass'n v. Union Nat'l Bank, 224 Ark. 48, 273 S.W.2d 408 (1954).Google Scholar

192 E.g., Bay County Bar Ass'n v. Finance Sys., Inc., 345 Mich. 434, 76 N.W.2d 23 (1956).Google Scholar

193 E.g., Title Guar. Co. v. Denver Bar Ass'n, 135 Colo. 423, 312 P.2d 1011 (1957).Google Scholar

194 E.g., Washington State Bar Ass'n v. Washington Ass'n of Realtors, 41 Wash. 2d 697, 251 P.2d 619 (1952); Arkansas Bar Ass'n v. Block, 230 Ark. 430, 323 S.W.2d 912, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 836 (1959).Google Scholar

195 People ex rel. Illinois State Bar Ass'n v. Schafer, 404 Ill. 45, 87 N.E.2d 773 (1949).Google Scholar

196 E.g., Clark V. Austin, 30 Mo. 467, 101 S.W.2d 977 (1937).Google Scholar

197 E.g., People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Goodman, 366 Ill. 346, 8 N.E.2d 941 (1937).Google Scholar

198 E.g., Chicago Bar Ass'n v. United Taxpayers, 312 Ill. App. 243, 38 N.E. 2d 349 (1941).Google Scholar

199 E.g., Stack v. P.G. Garage, Inc., 7 N.J. 118, 80 A.2d 545 (1951).Google Scholar

200 E.g., Realty Appraisals Co. v. Astor-Broadway Holding Corp., 5 A.D.2d 36, 169 N.Y.S.2d 121 (1957).Google Scholar

201 See Wood, Auerbach V., 139 N.J. Eq. 599, 53 A.2d 800 (1947), aff'd, 142 N.J. Eq. 484, 59 A.2d 863 (1948); Goldsmith v. United States Bd. of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117 (1926).Google Scholar

202 Note, Proposed Restriction of Lay Practice Before Federal Administrative Agencies, 48 Colum. L. Rev. 120, 123–24 (1948).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

203 See In re Bercu, 273 A.D. 524, 78 N.Y.S.2d 209 (1948), aff'd, 299 N.Y. 728, 87 N.E.2d 451 (1949); Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 52 N.E.2d 27 (1943).Google Scholar

204 E.g., Gardner V. Conway, 234 Minn. 468, 48 N.W.2d 788 (1951); Agran v. Shapiro, 127 Cal. App. 2d 807, 273 P.2d 619 (1954).Google Scholar

205 Griswold, , supra note 177, at 1114. See also id., Lawyers and Accountants, and Taxes, Unauthorized Prac. News, No. 2, 1955, at 3.Google Scholar

206 See In re Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen, 13 Ill. 2d 391, 150 N.E.2d 163 (1958); In re O'Neill, 5 F. Supp. 465 (E.D.N.Y. 1933); In re Maclub of America, Inc., 295 Mass. 45, 3 N.E.2d 272 (1936).Google Scholar

207 Hicks & Katz, 131–34.Google Scholar

208 Id. at 129–68.Google Scholar

209 Id. at 122, 125.Google Scholar

210 Hale, supra note 167, at 6. The texts of those Statements of Principles in effect at any given time may be found in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory. E.g., 3 Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory 121A-30A (Summit, N.J.: Martindale-Hubbell, Inc., 1960).Google Scholar

211 People ex rel. Committee on Grievances v. Denver Clearing House Banks, 99 Colo. 50, 59 P.2d 468 (1936).Google Scholar

212 “Defendant,” as defined in Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, at 687, “1. Defending, being on the defensive” (2d ed. Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1953).Google Scholar

213 Wayland Cedarquist, The 1962 Arizona Constitutional Amendment, 28 Unauthorized Prac. News, No. 3, 1962, at 252.Google Scholar

214 Id. at 256–57.Google Scholar

215 Ariz. Const. art. 26, § 1 (1910, amended 1962).Google Scholar

216 Morley v. J. Pagel Realty & Ins., 27 Ariz. App. 62, 550 P.2d 1104 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

217 Neale, Olson V., 116 Ariz. 522, 570 P.2d 209 (1977).Google Scholar

218 Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Quinlan & Tyson, Inc., 34 Ill. 2d 116, 214 N.E.2d 771 (1966).Google Scholar

219 NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963).Google Scholar

220 Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964).Google Scholar

221 UMW Dist. 12 v. Illinois State Bar Ass'n, 389 U.S. 217 (1967).Google Scholar

222 94 A.B.A. Reports 392 (1969).Google Scholar

223 Florida Bar v. Consolidated Business & Legal Forms, Inc., No. 53,702 Fla. (Sup. Ct.) (decision pending). Case noted in 66 A.B.A.J. 27–28 (1980).Google Scholar

224 Surety Title Ins. Agency v. Virginia State Bar, 431 F. Supp. 298 (E.D. Va. 1977), vacated and remanded (proper procedure was for the federal court to withhold final decision pending final resolution of a state proceeding in the matter), Virginia State Bar v. Surety Title Ins. Agency, 571 F.2d 205 (1978), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 941 (1978).Google Scholar

225 See Lawscope, , New UPL Process Set to Begin in Virginia, 65 A.B.A.J. 542 (1979).Google Scholar

226 Podgers, James, Statements of Principles: Are They on the Way Out 66 A.B.A.J. 129 (1980).Google Scholar

227 Id. at 129–30.Google Scholar

228 Id. at 129.Google Scholar

229 Id. at 130.Google Scholar

230 Legislation might be thought to be such a public voice were it not for the fact that unauthorized practice legislation did not come about as a result of popular demand but rather through the efforts of a strong pressure group—the legal profession.Google Scholar

231 See Morrison, Alan B., Revising the Definition of the Practice of Law as a Way of Increasing the Availability of “Legal” Services (paper presented at the Second National Conference on Legal Services and the Public, Dec. 7–8, 1979). See also id., Revising the Definition of the Practice of Law as a Way of Increasing the Availability of “Legal” Services, 66 A.B.A.J. 248 (1980).Google Scholar

232 See notes 216, 219 supra.Google Scholar

233 George Orwell, 1984 (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1949).Google Scholar

234 An examination of the decisions in 144 unauthorized practice cases (being all of the cases cited in Fischer & Lachmann, supra note 5, at 352–57, for the period from 1908 to 1969 in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, and New York), reveals only 12 that involve specific injury, either alleged or actual, to anyone. It might be argued that some of the 132 cases that did not involve actual injury may have been instituted by bar associations, attorneys general, or others in response to complaints of injury. Nothing in the decisions suggests that this is so, however, and the assumption that it is so seems a weak foundation for restrictive rules. The fact remains that the cases themselves show comparatively little actual injury to anyone by reason of the activities of unauthorized practitioners.Google Scholar

235 However, a comparatively recent development in the insurance field is the independent insurance consultant whose object is not to sell insurance but to give advice for a fee. Such a consultant might offer to the public valuable help in estate planning without risk of injury to the public by reason of either incompetence or conflict of interest.Google Scholar

236 See NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963); Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen V. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964); UMW Dist. 12 v. Illinois State Bar Ass'n, 389 U.S. 217 (1967).Google Scholar

237 UMW Dist. 12 v. Illinois State Bar Ass'n, 389 U.S. 217 (1967).Google Scholar

238 “In [this case] … there was absolutely no indication that the theoretically imaginable divergence between the interests of union and member ever actually arose in the context of a particular lawsuit; indeed … the Illinois Supreme Court itself described the possibility of conflicting interest as, at most, ‘conceivabl[e].’”Id. at 224.Google Scholar

239 Llewellyn, supra note 177.Google Scholar

240 Subsequent to the decisions in the lay intermediaries cases, one courageous bar committee attempted to do just that, but was only partly successful. See American Bar Association Special Committee on the Availability of Legal Services, Report on Group Legal Services, 93 A.B.A. Reports 518 (1968); action by ABA House of Delegates deferred, 93 A.B.A. Reports 351–52 (1968); recommendations from Availability Committee's report offered as amendment to proposed ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, defeated, 94 A.B.A. Reports 392 (1969).Google Scholar

241 See Morrison articles, supra note 232.Google Scholar

242 See section A supra.Google Scholar

243 American Bar Association, Special Committee on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement, Problems and Recommendations in Disciplinary Enforcement 1 (Final Draft, June 1970).Google Scholar

244 Llewellyn, supra note 177.Google Scholar

245 Frost, Robert, “Reluctance,” in The Poems of Robert Frost, supra note 2, at 31.Google Scholar