In re Leonard

• Decision Date: 18 March 1885
• Citation: 12 Or. 93,6 P. 426
• Parties: In re Application of LEONARD to be admitted as an Attorney to this Court.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

6 P. 426

12 Or. 93

In re Application of LEONARD to be admitted as an Attorney to this Court.

Supreme Court of Oregon

March 18, 1885

E.B Watson, for the motion.

PER CURIAM.

A motion has been made and submitted herein for the admission of Mary A. Leonard as a member of the bar of this court founded upon certificate of her admission to the supreme court of Washington Territory. The statute of this state applicable to the admission of attorneys, provides that "an applicant for admission as an attorney must apply to the supreme court, and must show (1) that he is a citizen of the United States and of this state, and of the age of 21 years, which proof may be made by his own affidavit; (2) that he is a person of good moral character, which may be proved by any evidence satisfactory to the court; (3) that he has the requisite learning and ability, which must be shown by the examination of the applicant by the judges, or under their direction, in open court, at the term at which the application is made." Code, § 1003. There is no provision for the admission to the court upon a certificate of admission as attorney to the courts of another state or country, except as provided in section 1005 of the Code which reads as follows:

"Whenever it appears that a person of any other state or country is an attorney of the highest court of record of such state or country, he may appear as counsel for a party in a particular action, suit, or before a judicial officer of this state, but not otherwise."

Yet the courts, both supreme and circuit, have followed the practice of admitting attorneys upon certificate of admission to the courts of other states, territories, and foreign countries without examination, and, in many instances, without proof of good moral character. Such practice is authorized by the rules of this court, but is not sanctioned by any statute of the state, and has been tolerated by an exuberance of liberality exercised by the bench and bar. It is doubtful, indeed, whether the courts ought to exhibit such extraordinary comity, and whether it does not contravene the policy of the state; but it is difficult for lawyers to be illiberal in such matters, and a very questionable practice has grown up in consequence.

The application in this case is somewhat unusual. The applicant has produced a certificate of admission to the courts of Washington Territory, which, under the practice referred to would...