Court Opinion

ID: 9623996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:48:22.290127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:26.054019
License: Public Domain

PHELPS, Justice
(dissenting).
I do not agree with that portion of the majority opinion relating to the sufficiency of title. I find no serious fault with other portions of the decision.
After extensive research and study of the law involved in the above entitled cause and after long and concerted deliberation this court on January 16, 1950 rendered what was then the considered judgment of its individual members. It then declared the title to the State Bar Act of Arizona to be wholly insufficient to meet the requirements of the State Constitution relating to titles and that the act was therefore unconstitutional.
Although it has been an unbroken rule of this court, so far as I know, that rehearings will not be granted where the points urged amount only to a reargument of propositions of law already considered, Love v. Bracamonte, 29 Ariz. 357, 241 P. 514; or to reopen the whole case in order to review a former decision, yet that seems to have been exactly what has been done in this case. No additional authorities have been cited to sustain appellee’s position; no specific reason has 'been assigned that was not fully presented in its original brief, and no argument has been made on the rehearing that is different or at all persuasive to the effect that this court in its original opinion either misconstrued the constitutional provisions under consideration or misapplied the facts thereto.
Attorneys for appellee have again called our attention to the case of In re Miller, 29 Ariz. 582, 244 P. 376, and it is again asserted (with which the majority now agree) that the title “Attorneys at Law” is sufficient to give notice to those who may be interested in the act that it would carry provisions relating to admission, discipline and disbarment of attorneys. They again. *336assert, to which the majority assents, that “Attorneys at Law” is synonymous with “An Act Relating to the State Bar.”
As pointed out in the original opinion the court in the Miller case did not have before it for its consideration the question of whether a provision for admission to practice law might be properly included in an act entitled “Attorneys at Law.” The court had before it not only that title but in addition thereto and as a part thereof, the title of chapter 76, Laws of 1907, Territory of Arizona, and the title: “An Act to Regulate the Admission to Practice of Attorneys at Law and the Disbarment of Attorneys and Defining the Rights, Duties and Privileges of Attorneys at Law.” The latter title was the one under which section 2, chapter 24 of the Acts of the First Legislature was enacted. That act was amended by chapter 43, Session Laws of 1919, containing among other things and as a part thereof, the'words “Attorneys at Law.”
Tn State ex rel. Pardee v. Latourette, 168 Or. 584, 125 P.2d 750, 754, the court said: “It is sufficient for the title of an act to amend a particular section of the Code or other compilation of laws, to specify the section to be amended, without in any way indicating the subject-matter of the section, and, under such a title, any legislation is- proper which could have been included-in the original act.” (Citing cases.) ' •
We can s'ee from this statement of the law that it was not only the right but the duty of the court in its decision in the Miller case to consider and treat the title to chapter 24 of the Acts of the First Legislature as a part of chapter 43, Session Laws of 1913 as much so as if it had been incorporated verbatim in the latter title.
The decision of the court in the Miller case to the effect that the title “Attorneys at Law”, standing alone, was sufficient to meet the constitutional requirements, was. therefore pure dictum. I recognize the principle that the court has the right to assign more than one ground for sustaining or overruling a judgment of the lower court but the decision in the Miller case does not fall within that category.
In the Integration of Bar Case, 244 Wis. 8, 11 N.W.2d 604, 12 N.W.2d 699, 151 A.L.R. 586, cited in the majority opinion as authority for the sufficiency of the title, in-the instant case the question of the sufficiency of the title was not even remotely at issue. That point was not raised and not one reference is made in the opinion to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the title nor is. there any other similarity in that case to. the instant case. The Wisconsin legislature simply authorized the supreme court to integrate the bar. The supreme court of Wisconsin had the inherent power to do that without legislative aid and it so held in that case. The primary contention there was. that the legislature had not validly passed the act in question for the reason that the concurrence of the House with the Senate *337was not passed by a two-thirds majority after a veto by the governor. There were other questions raised but like this one were wholly immaterial to the issues in this case.
The title in the South Dakota Act cited by the majority as authority for their decision includes a provision for the organization, membership and powers of the association and in the Michigan title it provided for the organization, regulation and rules of government thereof. These provisions ar« not in the title of the act under consideration. If they were they would present an entirely different picture to what we have. Among the states of the Union which have passed legislation integrating the bar the acts of California, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Oklahoma, Washington, Kentucky, Utah and Wyoming all contain provisions for the organization, government and powers of the bar and in all but two of these states the title expressly provides for the admission, discipline and disbarment of attorneys. The integration of the bar in many of the other states referred to in the majority opinion has been accomplished by the exercise of the inherent powers of the supreme court of the respective states and not by legislative enactment. Therefore the majority opinion in this case finds no support in the titles of any of the acts throughout the country relating to the integration of the bar.
I have 'no quarrel with the soundness of the law'contained in the excerpts quoted in the majority opinion. These principles were approved in the original opinion. The difficulty is in their application.
No one could logically argue that the title-must index the act. But the contents of the act must not only be germane to the title-but must at least indicate in a general way what is to follow. This principle is set forth, in the majority opinion as a sound principle-of construction. I maintain that the title-in the instant case utterly fails to meet the latter requirement. The cases of Inhabitants of Montclair Tp. v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 2 S.Ct. 391, 27 L.Ed. 431; State v. Town of Union, 33 N.J.L. 351, and others cited in the majority opinion deal with municipalities (political subdivisions) and are conceded by the majority to be not in point as authority in the instant case. Thus it will be seen that the majority opinion constitutes a mere ipsi dixit of this court which-in my opinion is without legal basis upon which to rest or logic to sustain it. Its effect is to repeal, amend or ignore the constitutional mandate contained in article 4, part 2, section 13 thereof and if followed will result in the recurrence of hodgepodge legislation which this constitutional provision was designed to prevent.
In addition to what was said in the original opinion I desire to further point out by way of illustration the unsoundness of the majority opinion on rehearing. Let us apply the yardstick used by the majority: Are the contents of the act in the instant case germane to the title and does the title in any way indicate, at least in a general *338way, what is to follow in the way of legislation ?
Let us suppose, as an illustration, that the act under consideration had fixed a minimum fee which must be charged in the various types of litigation handled by the legal profession and that it provided that any lesser fee charged by an attorney would constitute misconduct and subject him to discipline or disbarment. Certainly no one can say that the collection of a fee is not germane to the practice of law and the majority opinion stresses the germane feature of the act as being all-controlling. Such a provision would be just as germane to the title as the disbarment proceedings and the grounds therefor actually incorporated in the State Bar Act today. Would this court say in such a case that the title used in the State Bar Act would be sufficient to give notice of inclusion of a restriction on attorneys’ fees and provide punishment for its violation? How does this differ from what was actually included in the act? If this decision is to be followed it opens the gate to surreptitious legislation which will enable other groups rendering services in which the public is vitally interested by paraphrasing the title used in the State Bar Act to secure the passage of measures which would materially affect the general welfare of the community.
The title of the State Bar Act when presented to the Eleventh Legislature for passage read as follows:
' “An Act to Create a Public Corporation to Be Known as ‘The State Bar of Arizona,’ to Provide for Its Organization, Government, Membership, and Powers, to Regulate the Practice of Law and Provide Penalties for Violations of Said Act.”
It is quite significant that the title was amended to eliminate the portion thereof relating to the regulation of the practice of law and for the disbarment of attorneys. Had this clause been retained it would have met every requirement of the constitution. The emasculated title here under consideration is strongly indicative that the legisla-tive intent was to deny to the integrated bar the power to establish new grounds and new proceedings for the disbarment of attorneys. Especially does this seem to be a logical conclusion in view of the fact that at the time of its passage there was then upon the statute books of this state a law providing for the admission, the discipline and the disbarment of attorneys practicing within the state. That law is still in full force and effect.
The majority opinion in setting up the historical background of the act upon which it relies, in part, for the conclusion reached suggests, in substance, that its failure of passage at a previous session of the legislature, under its original title, was probably due to the fact that it was necessary for the processes of education to operate upon the “lawyer and laity” and inferentially upon the legislative mind before the advantages of an integrated bar could be *339comprehended. If through these educational processes the legislative mind was finally rounded out to be “full-orbed and symmetrical” which resulted in the passage of the act, it would be interesting and most enlightening to know why that indoctrinated group struck from the title the portion thereof relating to discipline and disbarment and retained in the body of the act a provision for such action. I prefer to ascribe it to inadvertence rather than to deliberate design.
Personally I whole-heartedly believe in the integrated bar and although assuming none of its burdens, as a Judge I feel a personal pride in its activities and accomplishments both as applied to the State and County Bar. Although I regret that obedeience to my conscience compels me to pursue a course of action in this matter which if adhered to by a majority of the court would temporarily inconvenience the integrated State Bar in the exercise of its functions, this is but a fleeting expediency and unimportant. The interpretation of a constitutional provision is most important. Any decision which tends to lead us away from constitutional moorings found from experience to be necessary for the promotion of the general welfare should be studiously avoided. I know of no greater disservice that could be done to the bar of the state than for this court through judicial decision to fail in its duty to preserve inviolate our fundamental law.
Respondents’ motions to quash and dismiss should be granted.