The Lawyer's Livelihood the higher moral obligation calls on the citi zen to obey the "higher law" and set the unjust human law at naught. If, however, he does so, he must be prepared to take the punishment for the violation of the law. Revenue laws notoriously are observed to the extent that their violation is be lieved to involve unpleasant personal consequences and often no further. Statutory prohibitions against Sunday labor, against election betting, against usury, against carrying concealed weapons, and sumptuary statutes re garded as undue restrictions of personal liberty, are ignored on every side, and criminal prosecutions for their infringe ment meet with scant public favor. This propensity to discriminate between laws and laws, and to select some for present enforcement and others for con signment to the Umbo of ancient history, is not to be encouraged or fostered, for as has been justly observed by Presi dent Hadley, "When any nation looks upon law as a thing which the individual may use when it suits him, and evade or defy when it does not suit him, that nation is losing the bulwarks of social order." The lawyer is bound always to advise conformity to the clear requirements of every valid law. As a breach of this duty might involve considerable per sonal inconvenience, we may assume that it is observed by those who are conscious of its existence. How painful may become the performance of this duty none know better than some of us who at times have been compelled to insist that at the cost of social oppro brium the client must tell the whole truth, or at other times have been com pelled to decline to interpose a defense desired by some tender-hearted but erring and distressed man or woman. Whether or not a lawyer shall give advice as to any particular transaction
51
not within the^express prohibition of law, or of morals, as already intimated, is a question for his own judgment. But his judgment must be exercised with a full sense of his responsibility as a man and a citizen, and with the cer tain expectation of public disapproval if his participation shall appear to be out of harmony with his general reputa tion or shall seem to involve injury to the public interests. Such public dis approval sometimes it becomes the lawyer's duty to incur, but, generally, the best service to his client, to his pro fession, and to himself will result if in every case of doubt he shall first satisfy himself that his advice is given under a strict sense of professional duty, uninflu enced by expectation of a fee. If, after such self-searching, his doubt persists, he should conform to its warning, despite the necessities of his client, or even of a family dependent upon his fruitful in dustry. Often it may be found that the pur pose of the client appears questionable only because ill-considered and that by a change of plan it may be effectuated legally. The lawyer discovering and suggesting such a free course for legiti mate enterprise will deserve credit for acumen and sagacity, not criticism for "cunning shown in the course of the conduct of professional work." Procedure so advised in good faith, though irreproachable in morals and free from express statutory prohibition, sometimes has been challenged as an evasion of the law, but the contention has not always been sustained by the courts. To avoid misunderstanding, a few illustrations may be given. A corporation being in need of funds and lacking credit, has a solvent president B, willing to obligate himself in aid of his corporation, who arranges for a usurious loan to himself, in order that
