In re Opinion of the Justices
Citation | 194 N.E. 313,289 Mass. 607 |
Parties | In re OPINION OF THE JUSTICES. |
Decision Date | 30 January 1935 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Opinion of the Justices to the Senate.On June 29, 1934, the Senate adopted the following order:
Whereas, There is pending before the Senate a bill entitled ‘An Act relative to the unauthorized practice of law and prohibiting certain acts and practices' printed as House document numbered fourteen hundred and thirty-three, a copy whereof is hereto annexed; and
Whereas, Doubt exists as to whether certain provisions of said bill do not invade the judicial province in violation of Article XXX of Part the First of the Constitution of the Commonwealth or otherwise violate the provisions of the Constitution; therefore be it
Ordered, That the opinions of the Honorable the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court be required by the Senate on the following important questions of law:--
1. In so far as the words ‘practice of law’ relate to the performance of the functions of an attorney or counsellor at law before the courts, is it constitutionally competent for the General Court to enact legislation forbidding or permitting such practice by corporations or associations or by individuals other than members of the bar of the Commonwealth?
2. In so far as said words relate to the performance of the customary functions of an attorney or counsellor at law which do not involve appearance before the courts, is it constitutionally competent for the General Court to enact legislation forbidding or permitting such practice by corporations or associations or by individuals other than members of the bar of the Commonwealth?
3. To what extent are the forbidding or permitting of the exercise of the rights and privileges set forth in questions 1 and 2 and their regulation judicial rather than legislative functions?
4. Is there any phase of the practice of law set forth in said pending bill to which or from which the General Court may be legislation admit or debar corporations or associations or individuals who are nonmembers of the bar of this Commonwealth?
5. Is it constitutionally competent for the General Court, in the form of exceptions to general provisions making it unlawful for corporations or associations to practice law in this Commonwealth, to grant special powers and privileges to various corporations and associations, substantially as set forth in sections 1 and 2 of said bill?
Sections 1 and 2 of the proposed act read as follows:
‘It shall be unlawful for any corporation to practice or appear as an attorney for any person other than itself in any court in the commonwealth, or before any judicial body or the industrial accident board or the board of tax appeals; or hold itself out to the public or advertise as being entitled to practice law, and no corporation shall organize corporations, or draw agreements or other legal documents not relating to its lawful business, or draw wills, or irrevocable trust instruments, or practice law, or give legal advice, or hold itself out in any manner as being entitled to do any of the foregoing acts, by or through any person orally or by advertisement, letter or circular; provided, that the foregoing shall not prevent a corporation from employing an attorney in regard to its own affairs or in any litigation to which it is or may be a party; and provided, further, that the foregoing shall not prevent any bank or trust company lawfully doing business in the commonwealth from furnishing to persons with whom it may deal or who may apply for the same, through its officers or agents, legal information or legal advice with respect to investments, taxation, stocks, bonds, notes or other securities or property.
‘The superior court shall have jurisdiction in equity, upon petition of any bar association within this commonwealth, or of any member of the bar of this commonwealth, to enjoin any person, association of persons or corporation from violating any provision of this section.
The order was transmitted to the Justices on July 5, 1934, and on January 30, 1935, they returned the following answers:
To The Honorable the Senate of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court have considered the questions propounded by an order adopted on June 29, 1934, and transmitted on July 5, 1934, after the prorogation of the General Court. Copy of the order is hereto annexed. The following opinion is respectfully submitted:
The questions relate to a pending bill entitled ‘An Act relative to the unauthorized practice of law and prohibiting certain acts and practices.’ The proposed bill by sections 1 and 2 revises respectively sections 46 and 47 of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 221, by section 3 repeals section 49 of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 221, and by section 4 enacts expressly that nothing in the act shall be construed as a limitation upon the power of the courts to decide what acts constitute the practice of law, or to enjoin and punish as a contempt of court unlawful practices of the law.
It is inherent in the judicial department of government under the Constitution to control the practice of the law, the admission to the bar of persons found qualified to act as attorneys at law and the removal from that position of those once admitted and found to be unfaithful to their trust. While the judicial department cannot be circumscribed or restricted in the performance of these duties, appropriate and essential assistance in discharging them may be afforded by the enactment of statutes. As the questions are framed and as a general proposition, valid permission to practice law cannot be given by the General Court except subject to the requirements for admission to the bar established by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Application of Kaufman
... ... Dean, 1945, Tex.Civ.App., 190 ... S.W.2d 126; Detroit Bar Ass'n v. Union Guardian Trust ... Co., 1937, 282 Mich. 707, 281 N.W. 432; Opinion of ... Justices, 1935, 289 Mass. 607, 194 N.E. 313; In re Bonam, ... 1931, 255 Mich. 59, 237 N.W. 45 ... Robert ... E. Brown, Kellogg, ... ...
-
West Virginia State Bar v. Earley
... ... except by those who have complied with all statutory requirements, and the rules of court, relating thereto.' The opinions in In re Opinion of the Justices, 289 Mass. 607, 194 N.E. 313; In re Co-Operative Law Company, 198 N.Y. 479, 92 N.E.[144 W.Va. 518] 15, 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 55, 139 ... ...
-
Attorney General of Maryland v. Waldron
... ... at 583, 253 A.2d at 852. See Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Klauber, 283 Md. 597, 603, 391 A.2d 849, 852 (1978) (concurring opinion by Gilbert, J.). Thus, in Hahn, 253 Md. at 583, 253 A.2d at 852, Chief Judge Hammond stated for this Court that "(u)nder our constitutional system ... Lee, 422 A.2d 998 (Me.1980); Collins v. Godfrey, 324 Mass ... Page 695 ... 574, 87 N.E.2d 838, 839-41 (1949); Opinion of the Justices, 289 Mass. 607, 194 N.E. 313, 316 (1935); Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 210 N.W.2d 275, 279-82 (1973); Bramlett v. Burgin, 382 So.2d 284, ... ...
-
Moore v. United States
... ... 432 F.2d 732 OPINION OF THE COURT ... FREEDMAN, Circuit Judge ... We ordered rehearing of this case before the Court en banc to ... 56-61 (1970). See also Opinion of the Justices, 289 Mass. 607, 194 N.E. 313 (1935); Community Legal Services, Inc., 43 Pa.Dist. & Co.2d 51 (Phila.Co. 1967); cf. Application of Community Action for ... ...
-
THE PARTNERSHIP MYSTIQUE: LAW FIRM FINANCE AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY AMERICAN LAW FIRM.
...29 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 1, 55-56 (2016). (75.) In re Coop. Law Co., 92 N.E. 15, 16 (N.Y. 1910). (76.) Id. (77.) In re Op. of the Justs., 194 N.E. 313, 316-17 (Mass. 1935). (78.) Jonathan T. Molot, What's Wrong with Law Firms? A Corporate Finance Solution to Law Firm Short-Termism, 88 S. CAL......