The Canons of Legal Ethics needless repetition, and were wholly without index. From my point of view, interested as I was in getting such a code before the young men about to enter or already in our profession, with a prospect of the code being read and understood by them, a poorly arranged, long and confused code seemed greatly to be regretted, and accordingly I urged that the Committee break away from the order of arrangement and lan guage of the state codes, and rearrange, rephrase and in every possible way simplify the provisions of those codes, and then furnish an index to them. The secretary of the Committee wrote me that I was the only one advocating such a plan, but as I persisted in urging it he suggested that I submit a scheme for the rearrangement and classification of the state code provisions. I did so. My classification was not adopted, else I should not feel free to speak of it here, but the Committee did come to see the advisability of breaking away from the poor arrangement of the state codes and of making a new code which would be .an improvement upon the state codes in every way. I may say in passing that in my judgment the Committee hit upon an arrangement that in simplicity and clearness was far better than the one that I had sug gested. Yet because I was in some measure responsible for the breaking away from the state codes and for depriving the Association of the chance to say that it is advocating a code already substantially existing in eleven states, I feel it my duty to assist in every way that I can in getting the code adopted by this Association and in having Nebraska one of the states to take up the new code. The Bar Association's committee re ceived, as I said, many responses to its appeal for suggestions. A number of
275
these responses, together with extracts from magazine articles deemed helpful, were printed by the Committee in the form of a red book of 131 pages, a copy of which I hold in my hand. This Red Book, which contains detailed criticisms of the various canons of the different state bar associations' codes, was dis tributed to the members of the Com mittee and others who were deemed worthy, and the various members of the Committee prepared for the committee meeting at which it was to adopt a draft of a code. The Committee met in Washington, March 30, 1908, for that purpose, and spent three days in making a preUminary draft of the Code. They made, as all the bar associations since the Alabama Association adopted its code have made, the Alabama code the foundation of their work. They asked for and of course received the attendance at their meeting and the assistance of their fellow member Hon. Thomas G. Jones of Alabama, who drafted the Alabama code of legal ethics and who was respon sible for a number of the modifications of the Alabama Code made by the Com mittee. The preliminary draft of the Code thus framed was then printed and distributed to the Association members with a request for criticisms, and the officers of the various state bar asso ciations were also asked for criticisms of the draft. The secretary of the American Bar Association's Committee received over 1,000 replies to that re quest, and except as relates to one canon—that on contingent fees—the pre liminary draft was enthusiastically ap proved. Thereafter the Committee made its final report, which came before the Ameri can Bar Association at Seattle last August. Each of the canons was sepa rately voted upon and all but one were
