In re Bergeron

• Decision Date: 04 March 1915
• Citation: 107 N.E. 1007,220 Mass. 472
• Parties: In re BERGERON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

220 Mass. 472

107 N.E. 1007

In re BERGERON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 4, 1915.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Petition by Emile F. Bergeron for an examination for admission to the bar. Ordered that petitioner be not entitled to take the examination as to his legal qualifications until he has passed an examination as to his general education.

1. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT (s 1*)-ADMISSION-RULES AND STATUTES.

Rule 7 of the Board of Bar Examiners, relative to general education, effective February 2, 1914, was not repealed by St. 1914, c. 670, s 1, effective September 1, 1914, amending Rev. Laws, c. 165, s 40, authorizing the Board of Bar examiners, subject to the approval of the Supreme Judicial Court, to make rules, as to qualifications of applicants for admission to the bar, by adding the proviso that the ‘shall not be required to be a graduate of any high school, college or university.’

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Attorney and Client, Cent. Dig. s 2; Dec. Dig. s 1.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

2. STATUTES (s 181*)-CONSTRUCTION-MEANING OF WORDS.

Statutes are to be interpreted so as to give effect to their manifest purpose, as ascertained from the words used, given their common and approved meaning, and no intent can be read into a statute which is not there either in plain words or fair implication.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. ss 259263; Dec. Dig. s 181.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

3. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT (s 14*)-PUBLIC CHARACTER TO OFFICE-‘ATTORNEY AT LAW.’

An ‘attorney at law’ is in a sense on officer of state under oath binding him to the highest fidelity to the court as well as to his client, and sustains on obligation to the public no less significant than that to his clients.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Attorney and Client, Cent. Dig. s 21; Dec. Dig. s 14.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Attorney at Law.]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

4. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT (s 4*)-ADMISSION-REASONABLENESS OF EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENT.

A rule of the Board of Bar Examiners, approved by the Supreme Judicial Court, requiring an applicant for examination to certify that he is a graduate of a college or a day high school, or school of equal grade, or has passed the entrance examination of a college or of the college entrance examination board, or equivalent examinations, or has complied with the entrance requirements of a college, or has passed the examination for entrance to the Massachusetts state normal schools in English grammar and literature, in United States history, covering the history and civil government of Massachusetts, with related geography and English history directly contributory to a knowledge of United States history, in Latin or French, in algebra, or plane geometry, and in any two of the following subjects: Physiology and hygiene, physics, chemistry, botany, and physical geography-prescribes a qualification in general education which is reasonable as a prerequisite for examination for admission to the bar.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Attorney and Client, Cent. Dig. ss 4-9; Dec. Dig. s 4.*]

* For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

J. J. Cummings, of Boston, for petitioner.

H. R. Bailey, of Boston, for Board of Bar Examiners.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a petition for examination for admission to the bar. The facts are these: The petitioner has completed 3 2/3 years' work at a high school in Fall River, without having graduated, has spent three years in the study of law at a law school and has graduated with the degree of L. L. B., has taken and failed to pass examinations for admission to the bar in June and again in December, 1913, and now desires to take the examination for a third time. He has complied with all the preliminary requirements except that part of rule 7 of the ‘Rules of the Board of Bar Examiners' relative to ‘General Education,’ which took effect on February 2, 1914, and which is printed in a footnote. ¹ The present petition was filed December 26, 1914. The petitioner has not complied with any of the provisions of that rule. Being neither a graduate of any such school as is mentioned in (a) and (b) he has not passed the examinantion prescribed in (c).

[1][2] It is contended that this rule is abrogated by St. 1914, c. 670, which took effect on September 1, 1914. Section 1 of that act amended R. L. C. 165, § 40, wherein the board of bar examiners were authorized to make rules subject to the approval of the Supreme Judicial Court as to the qualifications of applicants for admission to the bar, by adding the proviso that such an applicant ‘shall not be required to be a graduate of any high school, college or university.’ As matter of construction, it is plain that this statute in no way affects the rule. The rule does not require any such qualification as is described in the statute. It simply establishes an educational test which may be met in several ways. One is by being a graduate of a college. Another is by being a graduate of a day high school or school of equal grade. But the applicant may qualify equally by passing the entrance examinations of a college, or of the college entrance examination board, or of equivalent examinations, or by complying with the entrance requirements of a college, or by passing the examinations for entrance to the state normal schools of Massachusetts in the specified subjects. Thus five ways of satisfying the educational requirements other than by being a graduate of a high school or college are defined. It has been suggested that the statute must be construed as expressing an intent on the part of the Legislature to compel the bar examiners to cease from enforcing the rule. Doubtless and statutes are to be interpreted in such way as to render effective their manifest purpose. Remedial acts are to be construed so as to afford the relief intended. But no intent can be read into a statute which is not there either in plain words or by fair implication. There are no means of ascertaining the purpose and effect of a statute except from the words used when given their common and approved meaning. They are to be read in the light of attendant conditions and the state of the law existent at the time of their enactment. But they cannot be stretched beyond their reasonable import to accomplish a result not expressed.

It is not necessary to determine the constitutionality of this statute, a question adverted to at the argument, as to which authorities in other jurisdictions are not in harmony, for the reason that the statute does not affect the rule.

It is urged, however, that the rule is unreasonable in itself and hence ought not to be enforced. This presents an important question. The rule was approved by the justices of this court before it was promulgated. That was done without the benefit of argument. It now is the duty of the court to guard most carefully against any influence flowing from previous thought about the matter. The circumstances are analogous to those where the justices of this court have given an advisory opinion under the Constitution to the executive or legislative departments of government and subsequently are obliged to reconsider the same matter as a court between parties litigant. Green v. Commonwealth, 12 Allen, 155, 164;Young v. Duncan, 218 Mass. 346, 106 N. E. 1. The determination of the question is approached with every effort to impartiality.It has been considered in a manner as careful and thorough as a sense of judicial duty can impose.

[3][4] The question thus presented in its broader aspects is whether any qualification in general education reasonably can be required as a prerequisite for admission to the bar. The natural impulse of any believer in a republican form of government is that no barrier ought to be raised against any individual engaging in any pursuit. Unrestricted freedom of choice and absolute equality of opportunity in every employment are elementary principles. Hence, at first sight any restrictions seem contrary to the spirit of our Constitution. But it is apparent that there are limitations imposed by the nature of things which cannot be ignored nor over-leaped. The ignorant cannot undertake a handicraft without...