Case Name: In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1953-04-27
Citations: 222 Ark. 35
Docket Number: 5-166
Parties: In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar.
Judges: Griffin Smith, C. J., and McFaddin and Millwee, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 222
Pages: 35–52

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar.
5-166
259 S. W. 2d 144
Opinion delivered April 27, 1953.
Rehearing granted July 6, 1953.

Opinion:
George Rose Smith, J.
A substantial majority of all the actively practicing lawyers in the State have petitioned this court to create an integrated bar association. It is our conclusion that the proposal should be approved.
The conception of an integrated or unified bar originated in the American Judicature Society in 1914. This form of bar organization has, with comparative rapidity, won widespread public approval and now exists in the majority of the states. Its distinguishing characteristic is the requirement that every attorney be a member of the organization and be a contributor to its support.
In a number of states the bar has been integrated by rule of court, upon the theory that the supervision of the practice of law is so essentially a judicial function that the courts are free to act without statutory authority. Pull discussions may be found in Petition of Florida State Bar Ass'n, 40 S. 2d 902; Re Integration of Nehrasha State Bar Ass'n, 133 Neb. 283, 275 N. W. 265,114 A. L. R. 151; and Integration of Bar Case, 244 Wis. 8, 11 N. W. 2d 604, 12 N. W. 2d 699, 151 A. L. R. 586. This is not a controverted issue in the present proceeding, for we have this express language in our constitution: "The Supreme Court shall make rules regulating the practice of law and the professional conduct of attorneys-at-law." Amendment 28. It is well known that this amendment was prepared and sponsored by the advocates of integration.
Amendment 28 was adopted in 1938, but we have heretofore been reluctant to create an all-inclusive bar association, as it has not previously been demonstrated that a majority of lawyers favored the step. In the face of the present petition it is no longer possible to believe that the move is not" desired by most of those who will be directly affected. It appears from the information accompanying the petition that there were 1,129 lawyers engaged in the active practice when the petition was cir eulated. Of these, 803 signed the petition, and of the 326 who did not join in the movement only 61 affirmatively offered objections. Thus the proposal is endorsed by more than 71% of the practicing lawyers and is opposed by less than 6% of them.
Yet the petition was presented primarily to practicing lawyers only. Our roster of licensed attorneys includes about a thousand people who do not actually practice law, and when the petition was received it was felt that the sentiment of the active bar alone should not be taken as conclusive in a matter affecting every one having a license. In order to give every licensed attorney an opportunity to express his preference we instructed the clerk of the court to mail a ballot to each of the 2,371 licensed attorneys whose names are on our rolls. The response was relatively light, as less than half took the trouble to sign and mail the postcards that were provided. It would not have been surprising had the vote been against integration, for the inactive attorneys might have attached primary importance to the fact that the proposal would increase their annual contribution for ostensibly belonging to a profession which is not their livelihood. Even this ballot, however, favored integration by a vote of 592 to 455. This vote, although small, is certainly large enough to be representative and confirms the petitioners' belief that the majority of lawyers will welcome the move.
In a matter that is of more direct concern to the bar than to the bench we are naturally inclined to give effect to the wishes of a clear-cut majority of our practitioners. Nevertheless the decision involves the exercise of judicial discretion, and we should not be willing to approve the petition if it were shown that the plan is not to the best interest of the public and the bar. That showing has not been made by the few lawyers who responded to our invitation to file briefs in the case.
Unquestionably the experience gained in other states is the best guide for determining whether the plan will be beneficial in Arkansas. We are much impressed by the fact that no state having an integrated bar has ever returned permanently to the alternative of a voluntary association that is supported only by those lawyers who are willing to devote their time and effort to projects that are really the responsibility of the bar as a whole. Oklahoma went back to the old system temporarily when the statute integrating the bar was repealed, but the arrangement had proved so popular that it was reinstated by rule of court. In the Florida case cited above it was said: "Letters received from the States in which the integrated bar has been tested, recommend it as a vast improvement over the voluntary association and proclaim that they would under no circumstances return to the old system."
The few opponents of the present petition object mainly to the fact that membership in the organization is to be compulsory; this is said to be akin to a closed shop, to be undemocratic, and to border on socialism. It seems evident, however, that some degree of compulsion is implicit in the language of Amendment 28, which directs this court to make rules regulating the practice of law. Any form of regulation imposes at least some restraint on the persons whose conduct is regulated, and if we were required to wait for complete unanimity among the members of the bar there would obviously be no need for the rules when finally adopted.
Furthermore, this proposal is clearly one that affects the public interest, and it is a commonplace truth that in such matters every individual cannot enjoy completely unrestricted freedom of action. The integration plan does not compel any attorney to attend the meetings of the association nor control in any other way his own free choice of conduct. All that he is required to do is to contribute a small sum annually, tentatively suggested as five dollars, to assist the association in performing its duty to the public. There are undoubtedly many ways in which the law and the administration of justice — matters of vital concern to every attorney — may be improved. We do not think it unreasonable to require every attorney to assume at least a minimum share of the collective responsibility.
At this time we express our approval of the request for an integrated bar. This petition, as the first step toward integration, asks only that certain changes be made in Buies 6 and 10. The suggested amendments would still leave open a number of issues, such as the procedure by which the new organization is to be brought into being, the manner in which its constitution or governing rules are to be prepared and adopted, the status of licensed attorneys not actively engaged in the practice of law, and the exact annual license fee that should be imposed to support the association. To the end that integration may be accomplished by January 1, 1954, we request the sponsors of this petition and all other interested attorneys to submit detailed recommendations to the court by October 1 of this year.