In re Application of Miller, Civil 2504

CourtSupreme Court of Arizona
Writing for the CourtMcALISTER, C. J.
Citation29 Ariz. 582,244 P. 376
Docket NumberCivil 2504
Decision Date27 February 1926
PartiesIn the Matter of the Application of BERT H. MILLER for Admission to Practice as an Attorney and Counselor at Law in All of the Courts of the State of Arizona

244 P. 376

29 Ariz. 582

In the Matter of the Application of BERT H. MILLER for Admission to Practice as an Attorney and Counselor at Law in All of the Courts of the State of Arizona

Civil No. 2504

Supreme Court of Arizona

February 27, 1926


Original proceeding. Motion of applicant denied.

Mr. C. H. Young and Mr. W. A. Ricks for Applicant.

Mr. John W. Murphy, Attorney General, and Mr. Earl Anderson and Mr. Frank J. Duffy, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State.

OPINION

[29 Ariz. 585] McALISTER, C. J.

This is an original proceeding in which Bert H. Miller seeks to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the courts of this state. His admission has been moved by a member of the Arizona bar, C. H. Young, and in support of this motion the following credentials are presented: First, a certificate of the clerk of the Supreme Court of the state of [244 P. 377] Idaho showing that he is a member of the bar of that state in good standing, and has been in the active practice in that court for more than ten years last past; second, a letter signed by the five members of the Supreme Court of the state of Idaho recommending him for admission to the bar of this state; third, the affidavit of Mr. Miller, the applicant, showing that he is forty-eight years of age, a citizen of the United States and Arizona, that he was admitted to the practice of the law in the state of Idaho more than ten years ago and since that time has been continuously and actively engaged in such practice in that state, that he has never been charged with any criminal offense and is in good standing in that court; fourth, the affidavit of J. D. Kilpatrick of Phoenix, Arizona, showing that he has been personally and well acquainted with Bert H. Miller for more than fifteen years last past, and that to his knowledge said Bert H. Miller has been continuously and actively engaged in the practice of the law for more than fifteen years last past, and that he [29 Ariz. 586] is a man of good moral character, of honesty and integrity.

There is no question but that this showing would entitle Mr. Miller to admission under the law as it stood prior to the enactment of chapter 56, Session Laws of Arizona 1925, but with the passage of this act admission upon motion, regardless of the character of the credentials presented, seems to be prohibited; at least we undertand such is the construction placed upon the act by the board of bar examiners, and the application in this case is made upon this theory. The applicant contends, however, that this chapter is unconstitutional and void and, therefore, that his right to admission rests wholly upon the law as it stood previous to its passage. The validity of the act is attacked upon several grounds. The first is that its title does not conform to the requirements of article 4, section 13, of the Constitution of this state, which reads as follows:

"Section 13. Every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title; but if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be embraced in the title."

Both the title and the act are short and are in this language:

"Chapter 56

"(Substitute Senate Bill No. 34)

"An act to amend paragraph 263, chapter 1, title 3, Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1913, Civil Code, as amended by chapter 43, Session Laws of Arizona, 1919, entitled 'Attorneys at Law'; and repealing paragraph 262 of the Revised Statutes of the state of Arizona, 1913, Civil Code, and all acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith.

"Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Arizona:

[29 Ariz. 587] "Section 1. That paragraph 263, chapter 1, title 3, Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1913, Civil Code, as amended by chapter 43, Session Laws of Arizona, 1919, be and the same are hereby amended to read as follows:

263. Every person who shall be of full age, a resident of this state and a citizen of the United States, and of good moral character, may be admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law in all of the courts of this state, but the applicant shall first produce a certificate from the board of examiners, that he possesses sufficient learning in the law, and is of good moral character, and is possessed of sufficient ability to enable him to properly practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the courts of this state. Before any person, who has been admitted to practice any person, who has been admitted to practice in any other state or territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, may be allowed to take the examination of the board of examiners, he shall produce satisfactory evidence by certificate or affidavits that he is still in good standing in each state territory in which he has practiced, and by certificate from the bar association, if any there be in such states, territories or District of Columbia, that he is an attorney in good standing. No person shall be entitled to practice as an attorney and counselor at law in any of the courts of this state until he shall be licensed so to do by the Supreme Court of the state. The clerk of said Supreme Court shall be entitled to receive from each person admitted, for the issuance of any such person license certifying that paid person is entitled to practice his profession in all of the courts of this state, the sum of ten dollars; provided that an attorney practicing in another state, territory or in the District of Columbia, may be permitted on motion to be associated with local counsel in the trial of any particular action in courts of this state, and only for the purpose of such case.

"Section 2. That paragraph 262, Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1913, Civil Code, and all other acts and parts of acts in conflict with this act, be and the same are hereby repealed.

"Approved March 12, 1925."

[29 Ariz. 588] The contention is that the title fails to state briefly or even mention any of the matters with which the act itself deals, and that it therefore violates said section 13, article 4. It is argued that this is true because no one can read the title and gain therefrom the information, or even an intimation, that in order to be admitted to practice law in this state an applicant shall be of full age, a resident of the state, and a citizen of the United States; that he must procure a certificate from the board of bar examiners showing that he possesses sufficient learning in the law, is of good moral character, and has sufficient ability to enable him to properly practice law in the courts of this state, and that everyone, regardless of the number of years he may have practiced in some other state or territory, must take an examination before a board of bar examiners.

The title discloses that the purpose of the act is to amend paragraph 263, Revised Statutes of Arizona of 1913, as amended by chapter 43, Session Laws of 1919, entitled "Attorneys at Law," and to repeal paragraph 262 of the [244 P. 378] same Code. As incorporated in the Revised Statutes of 1913, this paragraph provided that "every other person" applying for admission to practice in Arizona (the preceding paragraph [262] having authorized the admission upon motion of attorneys who had been in the active practice in another state for the three years last past) should produce a certificate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court, No. CV-04-0103-CQ.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • October 5, 2005
    ...regulate the practice of law. See, e.g., State Bar of Ariz. v. Ariz. Land Title & Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76, 366 P.2d 1 (1961); In re Miller, 29 Ariz. 582, 244 P. 376 (1926); In re Bailey, 30 Ariz. 407, 248 P. 29 (1926). 9. Wholly apart from the power to regulate the bar given by our state con......
  • City of Fircrest v. Jensen, No. 76738-6.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • October 5, 2006
    ...26 of the Iowa Constitution reading, "[e]very law shall embrace but one object which shall be expressed in its title"); In re Miller, 29 Ariz. 582, 244 P. 376, 379 (1926) (interpreting article IV, section 13 of the Arizona Constitution reading, "[e]very act shall embrace but one subject and......
  • Application of Kaufman, 7528
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • May 16, 1949
    ...with the court. Whether he shall be admitted, or whether he shall be disbarred, is a judicial and not a legislative question.' Re Miller, 29 Ariz. 582, 244 P. 376; Matter of Mosness, 39 Wis. 509, 20 Am.Rep. 55; In re Day, 181 Ill. 73, 54 N.E. 646, 50 L.R.A. 519; In re Burton, 67 Utah 118, 2......
  • Shannon, Matter of, No. SB-92-0001-D
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • June 21, 1994
    ...it impossible, or even unreasonably difficult" for the judicial department to perform its constitutional function. E.g., In re Miller, 29 Ariz. 582, 596, 244 P. 376, 380 (1926). Because we find that the imposition of costs and expenses plays an important and necessary function in our discip......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court, No. CV-04-0103-CQ.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • October 5, 2005
    ...regulate the practice of law. See, e.g., State Bar of Ariz. v. Ariz. Land Title & Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76, 366 P.2d 1 (1961); In re Miller, 29 Ariz. 582, 244 P. 376 (1926); In re Bailey, 30 Ariz. 407, 248 P. 29 (1926). 9. Wholly apart from the power to regulate the bar given by our state con......
  • City of Fircrest v. Jensen, No. 76738-6.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • October 5, 2006
    ...26 of the Iowa Constitution reading, "[e]very law shall embrace but one object which shall be expressed in its title"); In re Miller, 29 Ariz. 582, 244 P. 376, 379 (1926) (interpreting article IV, section 13 of the Arizona Constitution reading, "[e]very act shall embrace but one subject and......
  • Application of Kaufman, 7528
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • May 16, 1949
    ...with the court. Whether he shall be admitted, or whether he shall be disbarred, is a judicial and not a legislative question.' Re Miller, 29 Ariz. 582, 244 P. 376; Matter of Mosness, 39 Wis. 509, 20 Am.Rep. 55; In re Day, 181 Ill. 73, 54 N.E. 646, 50 L.R.A. 519; In re Burton, 67 Utah 118, 2......
  • Shannon, Matter of, No. SB-92-0001-D
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • June 21, 1994
    ...it impossible, or even unreasonably difficult" for the judicial department to perform its constitutional function. E.g., In re Miller, 29 Ariz. 582, 596, 244 P. 376, 380 (1926). Because we find that the imposition of costs and expenses plays an important and necessary function in our discip......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT