People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Baker

• Decision Date: 19 February 1924
• Docket Number: No. 14596.,14596.
• Citation: 311 Ill. 66,142 N.E. 554
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. CHICAGO BAR ASS'N v. BAKER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

311 Ill. 66

142 N.E. 554

PEOPLE ex rel. CHICAGO BAR ASS'N

v.BAKER.

No. 14596.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 19, 1924.

Information by the People, on the relation of the Chicago Bar Association, to disbar Lewis F. Baker, an attorney at law.

Rule discharged.

Dunn, Cartwright, and Carter, JJ., dissenting.

John L. Fogle, of Chicago (William H. Sexton and Frank E. Harkness, both of Chicago, of counsel), for relator.

Joseph A. Weil, of Peoria, and A. D. Cloud and Thomas J. Symmes, both of Chicago (John A. Rose and McKinney, Lynde & Grear, all of Chicago, of counsel), for respondent.

FARMER, C. J.

This is an information to disbar Lewis F. Baker, an attorney at law of the city of Chicago, who was admitted as an attorney at law in 1913, and has since that time been engaged in the practice of his profession in the city of Chicago. The information charges, generally, that respondent devotes most of his time to instructing and preparing applicants for admission to the bar for taking the examination before the board of law examiners; that for that purpose he conducts quiz classes, for which the members pay him a substantial sum of money, the object being to prepare students, by intensive work under the respondent's supervision, to successfully pass the examination for admission to the bar, without regard to the student's previous training or knowledge of an acquaintance with the fundamental principles of law; that respondent is not connected with any college or institution giving instruction to students, but conducts his classes for the purpose of ‘cramming’ applicants to pass the bar examination, and the instruction given by him is limited to the subjects mentioned in rule 39 of this court.

The first count specifically charges respondent has for many years made a practice of cultivating the acquaintance of members of the board of law examiners for the purpose of procuring their good will and to use the same in aid of his business; that he employed a member of the board to draft a cross-bill in a suit pending and paid him $200 for his services; that respondent told said member he was conducting a law school, and induced the member to deliver a lecture in respondent's office to students who were taking his quiz course, for the purpose of causing the students to believe respondent could aid them in passing the examination; that respondent had visited two members of the board distant from Chicago for the purpose of cultivating their acquaintance, in the hope that it would aid him in his business.

The second count charges that in the past there had been rumors that certain applicants for admission to the bar had been able to procure, in advance, questions to be put by the board of law examiners in an examination, and that respondent had been active in encouraging the circulation of the rumors; that at the July, 1921, examination, through an error, the printed questions to be used in the examination twenty-four hours later by the board were inadvertently passed among part of the applicants, but the mistake was immediately discovered and efforts made to have the lists returned; that one of the lists, or a typewritten copy of it, appeared the same day in respondent's office and was used by him in preparing his students for the examination; that respondent did not, as it was his duty to do, notify the board of the matter and endeavor to keep it from the knowledge of his students, but posted the list in a conspicuous place in his office, open to the view of the applicants for admission to the bar.

Count 3 charges that prior to the December, 1920, examination, which was held by the board in Chicago, the respondent procured or claimed to have procured advance information of the questions, or some of them, which would be put to the applicants for admission to the bar, and offered to sell the information to Robert J. Shaw for $300, and to C. Lysle Smith without cost to him, to be paid for by Smith's friends.

Count 4 charges that it was the practice of respondent, on behalf of applicants taking his course who were lacking in the time of study required to be shown by proofs to qualify them for taking the examination, to furnish them affidavits that the applicants had studied under his personal tuition the period of time covered by their attendance on respondent's classes, and this, it is alleged, was an evasion of the rule of this court.

After answer filed to the information the cause was referred to a commissioner, who heard the evidence and filed his report, and the case is submitted for decision on the commissioner's report, without exceptions having been filed by either party. People v. Gilbert, 263 Ill. 85, 104 N. E. 1082.

The report of the commissioner is of considerable length, but the importance of the questions presented is such that we think it should be set out in full. It is as follows:

‘I, the undersigned. Roswell B. Mason, a master in chancery of the circuit court of Cook county and special commissioner of the Supreme Court of the state of Illinois, do now respectfully submit the following report pursuant to an order of this honorable court entered June 20, 1922:

‘Commencing on July 6, 1922, and at various dates thereafter, down to and including December 4, 1922, I was attended at my office, room 1602 Marquette building, Chicago, Ill., by Mr. John L. Fogle on behalf of the relator and Mr. Thomas J. Symmes on behalf of the respondent. I have taken herein the depositions of Elmer H. Bielfeldt, Lysle Smith, Robert J. Shaw, William B. Hale, Albert Watson, A. M. Rose, James W. Watts, Lewis F. Baker, Albert J. Ginsberg, John K. Monihan, Samuel L. Golan, John J. Whiteside, Morris Fisher, and Albert Woods. Prior to the examination of said witnesses they were each and all duly sworn by me according to law, and their said depositions constitute, together with the instruments in writing described in and attached to said depositions, the entire transcript of evidence in this cause. Said transcript of evidence is in my possession, and I am ready to certify it up to this honorable court in case either of the parties hereto shall so desire. This case was argued before me by counsel for the parties in interest in the month of February, 1923. I have neither asked nor received any compensation whatsoever for taking such evidence and making this report. From all the evidence offered and received before me, being the evidence included in said transcript of evidence and no other evidence, I find:

‘1. The respondent, Lewis F. Baker, was by the Supreme Court of Illinois, on or about October 8, 1913, admitted and licensed as an attorney and counselor at law of the state of Illinois under the then existing rules of this honorable court and his name entered on the roll of attorneys as an attorney and counselor at law of the state of Illinois. Said Lewis F. Baker is now, and has been since said date, engaged in the practice of law in the city of Chicago, in said state of Illinois.

‘2. Since the year 1913 said respondent has devoted his time almost exclusively to the business of instructing and preparing applicants for admission to the bar for their respective examinations by the state board of law examiners of the state of Illinois. The method followed by respondentin carrying on such business is to conduct. What is known as a quiz class previous to the respective examinations, upon the payment of $25 from each applicant enrolled in the class. Said respondent admits to his quiz class only those who have complied with the rule of the Supreme Court in reference to preliminary education and previous law study. Said work of said respondent is conducted by him solely for the revenue accruing to the said respondent therefrom, and is of the same nature as that carried on by several other quiz masters in Chicago, some of whom are said to be attorneys at law.

‘3. The sole object of such quiz class work and instruction is to insure, as far as may be, that the applicant taking such course, without regard to his actual knowledge and acquaintance with the fundamentals of the law, shall, by reason of such intensive work under the guidance of said respondent, be enabled successfully to meet the test of said board of law examiners at the subsequent regular examination for admission to the bar. Said respondent is connected with no college or institution giving training to such students, and is not engaged in conducting quiz classes covering specifically or generally any course in any college or institution of learning. Said respondent conducts said quiz course entirely independent of any such college or institution, and entirely independent of any course of studies theretofore pursued by such applicants, and solely for the purpose of preparing such applicants to meet the bar examinations as the same are given from time to time by said board of law examiners, limiting the instruction and quizzing to the topics set out in rule 39 of this honorable court, upon which it is prescribed applicants for admission to the bar ‘must sustain a satisfactory examination.’

‘4. Respondent is possessed of marked ability and shrewdness, and has acquired great proficiency in said work. He has for many years carefully studied each and every bar examination and each and every question propounded by the said board of law examiners at the examinations conducted by it, and has collected, codified, arranged, and systemized such questions. He has given careful attention and study to most, if not all, the published quiz books, and questionnaires on the topics mentioned in said rule, has studied the statutes and decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois and the leading text-books on the subjects mentioned in the rule, and has prepared a list of over 5,000 questions and answers relating to the topics set out in said rule 39, which said list he uses in his said quiz course. He divides his students into classes, and nearly always has from 100 to 115 students taking his quiz...