Hustling in the Law. One of the worst features about this grow ing innovation, not to use a stronger term, is the fact that a practitioner of the kind above referred to, in many cases, is allowed the in dulgence of the court to such an extent that he soon becomes contemptuous in his man ner even to the court itself. Have we not, my brethren, all of us no ticed this growing evil in a more or less degree? And at the same time the unfair advantage which this kind of practitioner gets over his less fortunate brother, and "while timorous knowledge stands consider ing, audacious ignorance has done the deed." And the effect on laymen. Do we not give honorable acceptance to the draft that ".law yers are made in a day," and that "the law is a sort of hocus-pocus science," etc.? The advice given by one of our old masters to the young practitioner was to " keep your office, and your office will keep you." All that is changed now; and the advice given under the new regime of these hustling limes would be to get out of your office and " hus tle" for business. Get out among the peo ple and "stir up" something. If you hear of some accident that has happened to some unfortunate, see him or his widow, or some legal representative, and get the case. If there is no case, make one out of it by hook or crook. Have somebody suggest to some body else that you are a " hustler." If ne cessary, pay a little " bonus" out of what is realized to " somebody." Just here it might be interesting to in sert parts of a little report of a "hustler" who enjoyed the distinction of being City Attorney in one of our Michigan towns; and this is his report to the Council of what he has done : — "To the honorahle Mayor and Common Council of the Your attorney would respectfully report in the case of a motion was made by your attorney . . . which motion was granted. . . . And a motion has been argued by your attorney and Mr. for a new trial, and his honor Judge has ordered a new trial of said cause, and your attorney
293
would therefore recommend that the city of defend anew with all possible vigor against said action, as Mr. has no merits in his case, and that they proceed and obtain another verdict of no cause of action / . . ." Ye gods! what a change from the primi tive purity and dignity of the code of ethics in the ante-BIackstonian era, when the mem bers of the profession were placed alongside of the mailed chivalry of western Europe. The dignity of dignities, the sanctum sanc torum of all the professions, the pride of the people, the noblesse de la robe I The advocate occupied an exalted position in the social structure in those days. How absurd to speak of " hustling," with its brassy jingle, as applied to the noblesse de la robe! The term might easily be one of reproach or contempt, but never of com mendation. In the days when the profession was exalted above all others, there was chivalric sentiment which placed it above all sordid greed, and made this profession what it was intended to be, an instrument under Providence, to exalt and guide mankind to a more perfect enjoyment of the gifts which an all-wise Power has placed within our reach. A reference to the rules of conduct gov erning members of the profession at the time tot which reference has been made, would forcibly impress us with the immeasurable difference in the code of ethics of that time, and the rules governing our conduct in these "hustling " times. I would not, my brethren, pose as a fault finder or critic. My lack of progressiveness may account for much that is here expressed. But this is no theory; it is a condition, which without doubt many of us have reason to know. Was it a condition of this kind which brought the profession into such contempt that it bred such sentiment as expressed by Shakspeare's King John, "When the law can do no right, let it be lawful that law bar no wrong," and the more startling sentiment in Henry Sixth, " The first thing we do, let 's kill all the lawyers." The profession of the law as the most dig-
