Merrick v. American Security & Trust Co., 63850.

• Citation: 22 F. Supp. 177
• Decision Date: 01 February 1938
• Docket Number: No. 63850.,63850.
• Parties: MERRICK et al. v. AMERICAN SECURITY & TRUST CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

22 F. Supp. 177

MERRICK et al. v. AMERICAN SECURITY & TRUST CO.

No. 63850.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

February 1, 1938.

Richard L. Merrick, William J. Rowan, John D. Sadler, D. L. Grantham, I. Brill, Louis O. Hodges, Jr., and Frederick A. Thuee, all of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.

J. Spalding Flannery and Stanton C. Peelle, both of Washington, D. C., for defendant.

BAILEY, Justice.

The plaintiffs, who are members of the bar of this court and of a committee on unauthorized practice of the law of the bar association of the District of Columbia, have brought this suit at the request of the bar association to enjoin the defendant from pursuing certain practices which the plaintiff claims constitute the unauthorized practice of the law. The defendant is a trust company authorized by act of Congress to act as administrator, executor, trustee, guardian, and in similar fiduciary capacities. In carrying out these functions it has in its employ members of the bar who prepare legal papers in connection with the business of the defendant. The plaintiff claims that in so doing it is engaged in the practice of law, and thus by its conduct and advertising it holds itself out to the public as having the power to give legal advice to its customers.

The defendant denies that the court has any power in the absence of statute to regulate the practice of the law except as to the actual practice in the court, and relies in part on the refusal of Congress to pass any act forbidding the practice of the law outside of the courtroom. I think, however, that this court certainly has the power to regulate the practice of the law in its broader sense so far as it concerns any legal questions that might necessarily or even probably be passed upon by this court, and to prevent those who are not members of the bar of this court from engaging in such practice or in holding themselves out as authorized to do so. As an example, a layman who advertised that he would prepare pleadings for any one to file in propria persona in this court would, I think, clearly be subject to the authority of the court.

It is true, however, that the situation here differs from that in many other jurisdictions. In addition to this court, the court of general jurisdiction, there are the Court of Appeals which, in addition to its jurisdiction of appeals from this court, has jurisdiction of certain other classes of cases, such as appeals from the Board of Tax Appeals, the Federal Communications Commission, and others, in matters over which this court ordinarily has no jurisdiction; the Supreme Court with jurisdiction of cases coming from all parts of the country; the Court of Claims; various administrative bodies of a semi-judicial nature such as the boards of the Patent Office and in the different departments of the government, the Board of Tax Appeals, and others. Over the practice before these various courts and bodies, this court has no power, nor can it prevent the giving of legal advice as to matters which may come before them or are likely to do so. It results that as to much of the practice of the law, both as to its broader and more restrictive sense in the District of Columbia, this court is powerless to act in the absence of statutory authority.

As to the particular activities charged against the defendant, as a corporation it cannot practice law, but it must be remembered that it is a business corporation, and in carrying out its functions authorized by its charter and by law it can ordinarily employ its own salaried members of the bar. There are of course certain disadvantages in this practice arising from the danger that the attorney will look upon himself and conduct himself more as a servant or employee than as an officer of the court representing his client. But this same situation exists where a railroad company for instance is represented by its general or local counsel, a municipality or the...