thousands of cases carefully selected and arranged for this purpose. Thus it is that he studies law not as an emanation apart from the rest of life, but as the pronouncement of the court or the legislature in relation to actual facts. The law school graduate of today begins his apprenticeship at the bar after having studied the facts in thousands of actual human situations, authentically proved and reported, and the reasoning and pronouncements of the courts and of legislatures in relation to those facts. Thus it is that the consideration in a contract, liability for a criminal or a tortious act; what is competent and relevant evidence; what makes good pleading; what is the meaning of easement, franchise, license, and other terms of the law, are infinitely more clear and understandable to the graduate of today than they were to most of us who have preceded them.

If "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", so the proof of a sound legal educational theory is in the graduate. He does not know it all when he gets his diploma. He has a great deal yet to learn and it will require years of patient effort, of observation and of seeking advice from his elders, to make him a finished lawyer. But that was ever so. No man was ever a finished lawyer when he began the practice of law, but the graduate of today is more useful when he leaves the law school, than were most of the young lawyers of fifty years ago, for the simple reason that he knows more law, knows better how to analyze a state of facts and seek the legal theory which applies to it; has been taught to think more independently, and has had his legal imagination cultivated and developed far more intensively than was the case with most, if not all of us, who sign this report.

All of this means that there must be increasing cooperation between the law schools and the bar, to get the best results. Neither alone is adequate for our purposes. The law school can help the student to lay his foundation, can point out the lines along which the super-structure is to be built, and explain these; but to the bar must be left the important task of inducting the graduate into the practice, of teaching him to understand human nature, the legitimate strategy of the legal battle or campaign, the routine of dealing with a client of making his charges, and of the thousand and one things of office and court practice, which only actual experience with actual situations and cases can develop. The best law schools are securing this cooperation and their product is proving itself to the bar, as is shown.

by the avidity with which established lawyers are seeking graduates of the best schools for clerkships and future partnerships; and of the rapidly increasing scale of compensation which is given to the young law graduates. These statements are not based upon impressions or theorizing. They are based upon knowledge of actual facts and oral and written testimony of hundreds of the ablest lawyers of the land, who are speaking with admiration of the equipment of the modern law school graduate. It is a just occasion of pride to us that our state has taken the advanced positions in regard to the subject with which we have been dealing, as shown by the able, conscientious work of our board of law examiners, the helpful attitude toward law schools and young law graduates, of the leading lawyers, the law firms of the state, and the willingness of our Bar Association, as shown by its resolutions regarding legal education, at its annual meeting in 1922.

But in addition to obtaining a balance between the study of legal principle and theory, on the one hand, and practice on the other, the successful law school must keep step with the bar in the changing period through which we are progressing. This means that not only must it follow developments in the old, established subjects like Torts and Constitutional Law, but it must take account of the development of fields of law that, in a sense, are new,-such, for example, as the growing scope of administrative law, the law of public utilities, the newer types of taxation, international law, criminology, and the comparative study of law. There is opportunity for great and useful work in all of these directions; and while much of it must perhaps be reserved for graduate students, nevertheless the law school must. catch the spirit of these new developments and adjust its instruction. accordingly.

That the American Bar has, as a whole, in recent years shown an increasing interest in the problems, not only of legal education but of the welfare of the profession as a whole, and the excellence of the material with which it deals, is evidenced by many facts. It is worth while recalling that at the annual meeting of the American. Bar Association at Cincinnati, in 1921, the Association, by an overwhelming vote, adopted the recommendations of the special Committee on Legal Education, whose chairman was Mr. Elihu Root, which recommendations urged specifically the requirement of the completion. of two years of college work and of a there-year law course in an

approved law school as a prerequisite to examination for admission to the bar. That report also wisely stated that the state, through boards of law examiners or otherwise, should test the effectiveness and soundness of legal education by giving its own examination to those who would seek the privilege of entering the profession. These recommendations were approved by an almost unanimous vote at the conference of delegates from state, county and city bar associations, held in Washington in February, 1922. At the meeting of our own State Bar Association, in June of 1922, these recommendations were presented by your Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, and they were adopted by unanimous vote and the President was authorized to appoint a committee to draft a bill to be presented to the legislature, for the enactment of those resolutions. The President, in fact, appointed the members of this Committee as also members of the special committee to secure this legislation; but it seemed to your Committee that it was unwise to present a bill of this character at the last session of the legislature. It was apparent that there were many matters of great importance sure to come before the legislature, and of a nature to seem to the laymen members of the legislature as of greater importance than any subject connected with legal education. Vital questions relating to taxation, corporations, economies in administration and (let it be said softly) certain factional differences within the legislature itself which made it seem unlikely that the matter, which would seem to many of academic interest, should receive proper consideration, decided the Committee not to present the bill at that time.

Your Committee suggests, however, that this matter should be earnestly brought to the attention of the next session of the legislature, and that the Association should authorize either the appointment of a new committee or the continuance of the Committee charged with that special duty; and we so recommend.

It should be added in this connection that these recommendations of the American Bar Association have been considered in many other states; but though your Committee has made inquiry of the officers of the American Bar Association, no definite information has been made available to us as to the results. We are in position to say, however, that several other state bar associations have likewise endorsed the recommendations of the American Bar Association, and that all over the country leading members of the bar are engaged in pressing the desired reform.

Another remarkable proof of an awakened American Bar, alive to its obligations and responsibilities and charged with the proper pride in the legal profession, is to be found in the organization, during the last year, of the American Law Institute. This organization has undertaken to examine the whole field of law and to make a public, simplified and clarified statement of the whole subject, with the hope of making our law clearer and simpler, of removing (to some extent, at least), conflicts, and of expressing it all in scientific form. Mr. Elihu Root, who has been active from the outset and who is honorary president, has been and is vitally interested in the work, attending meetings of the Council and helping in many ways. The Honorable George W. Wickersham, former Attorney-General of the United States, is President; and several of the leading lawyers of the country are upon the Council, which now is made up of twentyone men. The Institute has secured a grant of over a million of dollars for the purpose of prosecuting this work, and after long and careful study of the problem has decided to begin its work with the subjects of Contracts, Conflict of Laws, Torts, the law of Corporations and other business associations, and is making a preliminary study of Criminal Procedure. Nothing more promising for the welfare of the country has been attempted in many decades. Compared with it the work of Justinian was simple, easy and small. There is very good reason to believe that this great undertaking will be carried to a successful conclusion, not in one, or five, or ten years, but as rapidly as it is possible to do it thoroughly and scientifically.

The work of the Board of Law Examiners, as was stated at the outset, concerns one of the three strategic places in the life of our profession. That Board has the last say as to who shall enter the profession in this state, and it continues to perform its work in the unselfish, effective and admirable way brought to your attention in previous reports of this Committee. During the year since our last meeting the Board, at its September meeting, examined 244 applicants, of whom 139 were passed and 95 failed. At the April, 1923 examination, 110 candidates appeared, of whom 85 passed and 25 failed. The totals for the year are: 354 applications, of whom 214 were passed and 120 failed.

During the same year there were 22 applications from non-resident attorneys for admission to the bar of this state. Fifteen of these have been granted, one finally denied, and six were either withdrawn or are still pending.

MICHIGAN

STATE BAR JOURNAL

[Including a full reprint of the current Michigan Law Review] Published by the Michigan State Bar Association, at Ann Arbor, Michigan Edited by the Secretary of the Association

DIRECTORS FROM CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

OSCAR C. HULL, Detroit; CLARK E. BALDWIN, Adrian; H. CLAIRE JACKSON, Kala. mazoo; PHILIP T. COLGROVE, Hastings; FRED A. MAYNARD, Grand Rapids; CHARLES W. NICHOLS, Lansing; J. FRANK WILSON, Port Huron; F. O. ELDRED, Ionia; A. A. KEiser, Ludington; J. E. DUFFY, Bay City; SHERMAN T. HANDY, Sault Ste. Marie; ARTHUR H. RYALL, Escanaba; STEWART HANLEY, Detroit.

DIRECTORS AT LARGE

T. J. O'BRIEN, Grand Rapids; GEORGE W. WEADOCK, Saginaw; MARK NORRIS, Grand Rapids; ADOLPH SLOMAN, Detroit; ARTHUR C. DENISON; Grand Rapids; FREDERICK B. STEVENS, Ann Arbor; C. W. PERRY, Claire; JOHN J. CARTON, Flint; WILLIAM L. CARPENTER, Detroit; BURRITT HAMILTON, Battle Creek; GEORGE CLAPPERTON, Grand Rapids; CLAUDE S. CARNEY, Kalamazoo; JAMES O. MURFIN, Detroit; WILLIAM W. POTTER, Lansing; GEORGE E. NICHOLS, Ionia.

LEGAL AID A FORM OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

O

BY JOHN S. BRADWAY*

NE of the features which distinguishes a profession from a business is service. In the ordinary business transactions the main idea is to make a financial profit. When professional services are rendered the main idea is service. The fees, in theory at least, are incidental.

*Secretary of the National Alliance of Legal Aid Societies, Philadelphia, Penn. Address delivered before the Michigan State Bar Association at Grand Rapids, Sept. 7, 1923.