THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1881. LAW PRACTITIONERS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2276, 19 July 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1881. LAW PRACTITIONERS.

It is not often that wo have the inestimable felicity of agreeing with Sir George Grey. The schemes of that amiable statesman are too far reaching to recommend themselves to everybody. They possess the singularity of benefitting " unborn millions," without in the slightest aiding those uninteresting persons who happen to be alive at the present moment. It is with all the more pleasure, therefore, that we notice an eminently piactical and desirable measure which has been introduced by the late Premier, entitled the " Law Practitioners' Bill." The Bill consists of only two clauses, and is so short that it can be quoted in cxlcnso. Clause 1. The short title of this Act is "The Law Practitioners' Act, 1881." Clause 2. Notwithstanding any law in force in the colony relative to the admission of persons to be barristers and solicitors of the Supreme Court of the colony, from and after the passing of this Act every person of the full age of twenty-one years, and of whose good fame and reputation and of whose learning any one or more judges of the said Court shall be satisfied by examination in law when and in such manner as may from time to time be prescribed by the Judges of the said Court, shall be entitled to be admitted and enrolled without fee as a barrister and solicitor of the said Court, and and generally to the practice of the law and to all the rights and privileges thereof.

Sir George Grey, in moving the second reading of the Bill, stated that it was an effort to establish the rule observed in the United States, where there are fifty millions of people, and where it had been found to work well. The Hon. J. Hall also stated that he saw no reason why, if a man had good knowledge of the law, he should not be allowed to practice it. The whole subject is one of great interest to the public at large, because there can hardly be two opinions as to the way in which the present system works out in practice. A great deal is written and said about the heaviness of our taxation, but it may safely be asserted that the tax imposed upon ns by the legal profession is heavier far than any which the Government have yet had occasion to levy. Some time ago attention was called to this subject by the publication in the papers of certain lawyers' bills, so outrageous in their character that a general outburst of indignation followed. And yet no universal surprise was exhibited, nor was it attempted to bo proved that the bills in question wore far-fetched examples of attempts to bleed the public. As a smouldering fire when exposed to the air bursts into a ilame, so the outburst of indignation was a mere outward demonstration of a feeling which had previously merely lain dormant. It was admitted, perhaps, that the bills in question were somewhat stiff ones, even for lawyers' bills, but no one stept in to prove that they were outrageously unfair examples of the general system on which such bills wore framed. For the public have come to recognise that, in the matter of charges, members of the legal profession in New Zealand are by their very training brought up to look upon tho drawing out of bills of costs as a fine art, the higher development of which results in a very poculiar state of affairs. Most of us will he quite unable to see why this fine art should be confined to tho legal profession alone. Commerciil men and m n in oth< c walks of life may, and of course do, frequently overcharge, but the drawing out of bills of costs as an absolute fine art is confined to the legal profession.

alone. The preliminary cantor which our sucking lawyers haTe at prosent to tako through the office with the object of qualifying themselves for the bar, frequently results in their obtaining just that modicum of law required to pass them "through their examinations, together with a certain knowledge of the practice of law, but they always emerge from "their shell with the highest possible notions of their right to indulge their own sweet fancies in taxing the public at large. One would have thought that the Law Society —a society formed for the purpose of protecting the interests of the profession —would have also stept in to protect its reputation. But nothing of the sort occurs. The Law Society, as a whole, is apparently as fond of the fine art alluded to as individual members of the profession, whether belonging to the society or not. The Law Society jealously steps in if any attempt is made to interfere with the privileges granted to their order by the public, but the simple minded donors of those privileges are looked upon as fair game. In throwing open the profession to the public as Sir George Grey proposes, it may fairly be expected that some amelioration of the present state of affairs would ensue. The stock argument of lawyers against such a course is that the public must be protected against bad law. They would lead it to be inferred that cheap law is bad law. Their bowels of compassion are suddenly moved towards that same public which they have for so long bled so freely. They totally ignore the fact that a good deal of the very dear law at present in the market is extremely bad law, and that the fine art to which we have drawn attention the only branch which is at present practised with universal success—is not a legitimate branch of the profession. A stiff examination, properly conducted under competent authorities, would, under the proposed regime, guarantee that the candidates were sufficiently versed in the theory of the law and in such parts of the practice as could be reached by an examination. For the remainder the public will be well able to discriminate for itself, as they do In other professions. But invariably lawyers again point to doctors, and say " there are men who are compelled to go through a regular course before they can practice." We hold, however, that there is no analogy whatever between the two cases. Doctors can by no possibility gain an insight into their profession without walking the hospitals. There is no other mothod by which a sufficient number of cases of the varied diseases can be brought under their notice. The theory of medicine cannot be extracted out of a book alone, and students of medicine must submit to a recognised course, and place themselves en rapport with the authorities in charge of the hospitals, for otherwise it is very evident that utter confusion would reign in those hospitals. Besides matters with which doctors have to deal are of an entirely different character to those with which lawyers busy themselves. If a doctor poisons one there is an end of the affair. There is no chance of obtaining redress from the doctor, in this world at all events, as far as the individual himself is concerned. The public might suffer from bad law, but a man once bitten by a lawyer would be unlikely to come to him a second time. A man may be bitten by a bad architect putting up an unsafe house, but this is no argument why that profession should bo granted privileges by the public, or why a man should not allow his house to be put up by a mere builder. "We fail to see that the circumstances surrounding the legal profession are of so exceptional a character that lawyers have any right to claim a monopoly for those individuals who have passed through a certain specified training, if the requisite knowledge can be obtained in any other way. If the preliminary course is worth anything, the knowledge acquired thereby will be sure to tell in a man's future career, but to make a fetish of this same preliminary course is out of all reason. There are other points in connection with this subject to which we would wish to allude, such as the valuable legal knowledge gained by many men who do not go through the prescribed course, and which is at present entiroly thrown away, but the want of space forbids us at present dealing with them.