Court Opinion

ID: 9809368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:10:22.768792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:36.042829
License: Public Domain

Olahe, O. J.,
concurring: What the requirements shall be, and indeed whether there shall be any, before entering upon the practice of law, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, piloting, engineering, or any other profession, calling or vocation, rests within the police power of the General Assembly. State v. Call, 121 N. C., 646; State v. Biggs, 133 N. C., 729 ; Cooley Const. Lim. (6 Ed.), 745; Tiedeman Police Power, sec. 87.
The usual requirements as to the practice of law are twenty-one years of age, good moral character, an examination and certificate of proficiency by some committee or court designated by the Legislature, and the payment of a license tax. The Legislature at its will can add to or repeal any or all of these requirements. The judicial power of the courts in “admission to the bar” consists solely in determining whether these requirements have been complied with, and in administering the oath if required by the statute. “The Legislature may undoubtedly prescribe qualifications for the office (of attorney) * * * as it may prescribe qualifications for the pursuit of any of the ordinary avocations of life.” Ex parte Garland, 71 U. S., 333. And then adds that its ruling in that case does not call in question such legislative power, but merely asserts that its exercise cannot be used as a mode of punishment without trial.
Though the admission of attorneys “has usually been entrusted to the courts, it has been, nevertheless, both here and *16in England, uniformly treated, not as a necessary or inherent part of their judicial power, but as wholly subject to legislative action. In re Cooper, 22 N. Y., 67; 4 Cyc., 900.
In England there has not been any one of these requirements from the earliest time down to the present; but any one has been entitled to practise as a barrister, i. e., as counsel and advocate, upon being “called to the bar” by one of the Inns of Court, the requisite for which call till comparatively recently has been merely proof that the applicant has eaten a specified number of dinners at one of the four Inns of Court, that is, that for a prescribed time he had had opportunity to acquire a knowledge of law. Now, however,' a strict examination by the Inns of Court is required before an applicant is called to the bar by it. 6 and 7 Viet., c. 73 (1843). Attorneys in England are a distinct body. They cannot address the Court or jury, but attend to the “business end” of the legal profession, getting up the brief of the evidence, arranging the fee and selecting the barrister who deals with the attorney, and never directly with the client. Attorneys were originally appointed and restricted in number. ■ Afterwards by act of Parliament an examination by some one appointed by the Court, and proof of good character, was and is still required for these “business agents” — but not of barristers. In re Cooper, 22 N. Y., 67; 4 Cyc., 901; Ricker’s Petition, 66 N. H., 207.
In this State, up to Laws 1754, ch. 1, lawyers were admitted to practise, it seems, upon appointment by the Governor; and this is still the case in New Jersey. By that act an examination as to legal knowledge by the Supreme Court was substituted. In 1777, second session, ch. 2, sec. 6 (24 State Records, 50), an examination by two Superior Court Judges was required. In 1818 a finding of good moral character and proficiency in legal knowledge by the Supreme Court was required before admission to the bar. In 1869 this was repealed, and proof of good moral character before a *17Judge of the Superior Court and the payment of $20 was made sufficient. This act remained in force until 1871, when the Act of 1818 was re-enacted. During those two years many applied to the Supreme Court for examination, as formerly, but were refused on the ground of want of power. Under the Kevisal of 1905 the requirement of a finding of good moral character by the Court was stricken out, and for it there was substituted, as sufficient, merely a provision that before the Court should examine an applicant for license he must produce a certificate of good moral character signed by two members of the bar of this Court.
If this change was an inadvertence, the General Assembly-can correct it.* But this Court cannot add to the requirements of the law-making body as to lawyers any more than it can to the requirement for entering upon the practice of medicine or dentistry. It is true lawyers are officers of the Court; but so are sheriffs, clerks and the like, over whose selection the Court has no control. They aré officers of the Court, but not public officers.
Ever since 1754 an oath has also been required by statute, the administering of which is the act of “admission to the bar,” before which by production of the certificate of this Court the other requirements are conclusively shown to have been complied with. Of course, if the oath is required by statute, that, like any other requirement, can be repealed. It is not required as to other professions.
In two States the Judges, presumably elderly men and very conservative, having never seen a female lawyer nor read that they were allowed under the Saxon Heptarchy, and doubtless thinking it improper, attempted to add to the legislative requirements, either by construction or a supposed inherent power, a requirement that the applicant must be of the male sex; but the Legislatures of those States promptly enacted otherwise, and female lawyers are numerous now in *18those States, while here the first lady who applied was promptly admitted (in 1878), and for nearly thirty years since none other has sought entrance.
We do not examine applicants for license by virtue of our judicial functions. The Constitution, Art. IV, sec. 8, authorizes this Court only “to review upon appeal any decision of the Court below upon any matter of law or legal inference” and “to issue any remedial writs necessary to give it a general supervision and control over the proceedings of the inferior courts”’ and sec. 9 gives this Court original jurisdiction of claims against the State; our decisions in such cases, however, to be “merely recommendatory.”
Our examination of applicants for law license is made, therefore, not by virtue of our judicial duties, but since 1868 only out of courtesy and respect 'to the Legislature. That body up to the Constitution of 1868 created all the courts and defined the jurisdiction and duties of each, and could therefore make the examination of applicants a part of the judicial duty of any court. It is otherwise since this Court and its duties have been created and defined by the Constitution.
In only eight other States are applicants for license examined by the highest court in the State, to-wit, in Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Vermont, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. In two States, Arkansas and Mississippi, the examination is made by the District Judge; and in four others, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, and Nevada, the examination is by the District or Circuit Judge, aided by a committee of lawyers. In Indiana, the Constitution'forbids any examination as to legal attainments, and by act of the Legislature the admission to the bar is by a District Court upon proof of good moral character, and in New Jersey, the Court admits upon license signed by the Governor. In the other twenty-nine States and in the Territories, the examination is conducted by boards of practising lawyers, whose appointment by legislative enactment is provided for in various *19ways, but is usually vested iu tbe Governor or tbe court of last resort.
Iu nearly all tbe States, as iu tbis, tbe Legislature bas committed tbe course of study and length of study to be prescribed by tbe courts. Iu one State tbe length of time is four years; iu several it is three years.. Iu tbis State it was two years from 1819 to 1869 — one year to procure County Court license and another year to obtain license to practise in tbe Superior and Supreme Courts. From 1871 to 1901 it was only one year. In tbe latter year it was again raised to two years and tbe course of study was enlarged.
Tbe General Assembly having, whether intentionally or not, withdrawn from tbis Court tbe duty to pass upon tbe moral character of applicants, having substituted therefor a certificate of character by two members of tbe bar, we are precluded from going into the charges against these two applicants. We are only empowered to certify that having filed tbe certificate of character required by tbe statute and certified that they are of legal age, they have thereupon been examined by us and on such examination have been found to possess a competent knowledge to practise law.

 This has since been done by the Act of 1907.