Evening star., 1939-01-18

|lgy)!eg ~ States Court OF
Appeals decision
~ regarding the al
Mr.. Darr legged unauthor-
lied practice OF
the law by trust companies, in which
the association lost it's suit against
the American Security & Trust Co.,
and voted to have its officers and
directors prepare suitable resolu-
ton lauding the work of its retir-
ing president, Godfrey L. Munter.
Reporting recent activities OF the
Board of Directors, Mr.. Munter said
that the association now has 1884
members; said that the organiza-
ton took in SIS, 400 but disbursed
$4,000, and in view of this must in
crease in its membership and de-
clded to eliminate the customary
refreshments served at meetings as
an immediate economy measure.
507 Votes for Darr.
The balloting, held the latter part
of yesterday at District Courthouse,
had this result: For President, Mr..
Darr, 507 votes; Mr.. Munter, 1854;
for first vice president, Richard l..
Merrick, 352; James c. Wilkes, SOB;
for second vice president, Phillip W..
Austin, 289; Frederick A. Ballard,
243; Bernard G. Ostmann, 3O5; Will
bur l.. Gray, unopposed for secre-
tary, got 723 votes, while Francis
w. Hill, jr., unopposed for treasurer,
secured 1872 votes.
Three directors were chosen from
a list of nine to- serve for two-year
terms, the successful candidates be-
ing E. Barrett Prettyman, former
corporation counsel, 546 votes; AS
sistant United States Attorney Da-
vid A. Hart, 359, and Charles v.
Inlay, 349 votes. In all 876 ballots
were cast.
The directors had designated this
Board of Elections: H. Winship
Wheatley, jr., chairman; Assistant
United States Attorney Eugene Ca
rusi, H. Clay Espey, Dean Hill STAN
ley and Harlan Wood.
| At the instance of Thomas E..
Rhodes Mr.. Munter named a spe-
cial committee to investigate the
alleged practice that has grown up
recently in the United States mar
sails Office requiring defendants in
criminal cases to pay for subpoenas.
This committee comprises Mr..
Rhodes, Lawrence Koenigsberger
and Paul E. Lesh. Making it clear
that he was not criticizing the mar
shal's Office, Mr.. Rhodes declared
that the new practice, which he said
he was informed was done at the
instance of the Department of JUS
tice, results in hardship and is un-
constitutional. He contended that
that portion of the Federal Con-
stitution granting defendants in
criminal cases the right to have
compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in their behalf is nullified
by the new practice and is serious
matter. He also complained that
subpoenas cannot be secured after
pm.
The associations committee re-
lating to Police Court practice had
this to say in its report: Several
cases are now under consideration.
Several repeated offenses have been
brought to our attention. Princi-
pally they have consisted of solici-
tation. Others involve, however, at
temptS to vary testimony, splitting
of fees with bondsmen and coercion
on the part of the latter to employ
one attorney particularly in prefer
ence to another. The report is
commonplace in the corridors of the
courthouse that if you name the
bondsman the attorneys name can
be given in 7 out of 10 cases and
vice versa. This situation results
not by accident but by design.
There is only one way to get at the
bottom of this situation. The COM
mittee is following that way, and
it's course of action should be pur-
sued.
1--WE have had complaints against
several of the professional bonds
man. AS to the latter, the study
should continue before final action
is taken. AS to the former, we are
prepared to file very definite and
specific charges in several cases.
This action should await the de-
termination of the jurisdictional
question by the Court of Appeals.
Should it be decided that charges
ought to be filed with District
Court, then its committee will as
sumo jurisdiction and continue with
the work.
Mr.. Merrick, reporting regarding
the unauthorized practice OF law,
referring to the United States Court
of Appeals decision handed down
Monday in the American Security &
Trust Co. case, said that If it stands
the probate practice here will get
out of the hands of private prac-
titioners of the law into the trust
companies. The decision, he con-
tended, was of little aid in estab-
fishing a guide to the practice of
law in the District. He also de-
clared the Court of Appeals failed
to grasp the opportunity to render
a service to the legal profession and
the trust companies, for it fails to
determine the rights either of the
former or the latter, he said. The
report was ordered sent to the as
sociation's Board of Directors to
determine what is to be the next
step-a petition for rehearing, a
petition to the Supreme Court for a
writ of certiorari, or what. Mr..
Merrick said the trust company can
advertise, while under his code of
ethics the lawyer cannot.
Hear Other Reports.
The association listened to num-
ber of reports and voted to hold a
memorial service for deceased men,
bers at the March meeting from