court that John L. Tillinghast, Esq., of the State of New York, be admitted as an attorney and counsellor of this court, and he was sworn accordingly.

SECTION 2.-PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE

BARRISTER AND FOREIGN LAWYER. Statement of the General Council of the Bar, The Annual Practice (1917) p. 2413: It is contrary to etiquette for an English Barrister to allow a foreign Lawyer to have a seat in his chambers or to have his name on the door, unless the foreign Lawyer is subject to rules of etiquette similar to those of the English Bar. An. St. 1909, p. 11.

PARTNERSHIPS WITH FOREIGN LAWYERS. N. Y. Committee. Question 24: Is it proper professional practice for one or more attorneys and counselors of the Courts of record of the State of New York to form a partnership in New York with a foreign attorney, not a citizen of the United States, and not admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor of the Courts of record of the State of New York, the duties of such foreign attorney in such partnership being specified in the articles of partnership to be to act as counsel in New York in matters relating to the laws of foreign countries?

Is it proper professional practice for such firm to advertise, by publication in newspapers, and by sending letters and distributing printed cards in which such foreign attorney's name appears as one of the members of the firm, in such form, as to convey the impression that such foreign attorney is a practitioner of law in the State of New York?

Is it proper professional practice for such partnership, in the firm name including the name of the foreign attorney, to practice as attorneys and counselors in the Court of record of the State of New York as a firm, though the foreign attorney does not appear in person before the Court, or give counsel in respect to the law of the State of New York?

6 "A question of much difficulty arises with regard to men whose names have been struck off the Rolls, and who afterwards go as clerks to other Solicitors. "Many of us must know of instances where the clerkship position of the degraded Solicitor is but a sham; and that it is the supposed clerk (and not the Solicitor whose name appears on the door) who is really running the office."-James W. Reid, Professional Problems, Proceedings of the 33d Annual Provincial Meeting (1908) of the Law Society, 236, 241. Cf. § 32 of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, quoted in note 91, post.

COST.LEG.ETH.-4

Is it proper professional practice for such firm to announce the formation of their partnership in the following printed announcement: "PRINTED CARD.

"The undersigned announce that they have this day entered into a partnership to act as Counsel in matters relating to the laws of (foreign countries)

"(Signed) A.

"(Signed) B.

"(Signed) C. (Name of Foreign Attorney.)"

Answer: In the opinion of the Committee, the questions should be answered in the negative, because it is not proper for members of the New York Bar to enter into a law partnership with persons not qualified to practice in this State.

LAW STUDENT DRAWING LEGAL PAPERS, ETC. N. Y. Committee. Question 38: Is it proper for a young man of twentytwo, who at present is completing a three-year course at law school, and has worked for about two years in a law office, but has not as yet been admitted to practice, to open an office at his place of residence and there do notarial work (he being a notary public), draw various legal papers, manage estates, collect rents and do a general real estate. and insurance business?

Also state whether such a pursuit would in any way affect the standing of such a person, when applying for admission to the bar, so that it might give the Committee on Character cause for hesitating in their approval of him?

Answer: In the opinion of the committee, he should refrain from the business of drawing legal papers. The giving of legal advice by notaries and others who are not admitted to practice law is, in its opinion, dangerous to the welfare of the community, because such persons have not demonstrated their capacity by submitting to examinations lawfully established for practitioners of law. The committee is not aware of any reason why he should not engage in the other employments mentioned to such extent as may not interfere with the proper completion of his law course. The committee cannot assume to express any views for the Committee on Character.

McCARGO v. STATE.

(Supreme Court of Mississippi, 1887. 1 South. 161.)

Appellant was indicted and convicted for practicing law without having paid his privilege tax as required by statute. The facts are that McCargo was a retired lawyer; had not practiced law for several years. A neighbor had a claim against a railroad, which appellant, McCargo, took charge of for the purpose of collecting from the railroad authorities. He sought these authorities, and endeavored to get them to settle the claim-to compromise it. They refused. He brought suit against the railroad company, and conducted it both through the magistrate's court and the circuit court. He neither charged any fee, nor expected any pay for his services. From a judgment imposing a fine upon him in pursuance of his conviction, he appealed.

ARNOLD, J. It is only the practicing lawyer who is required by the statute to pay a privilege tax. The term "practicing," as used in the statute, implies something more than a single act or effort. Webst. Dict. A retired lawyer who conducts but one suit in court for a friend or neighbor, without fee or reward, is not thereby brought in the classification of a practicing lawyer; and for him to do so without a privilege tax license is no more a violation of law than it would be for a retired dentist to extract gratuitously a tooth for another without first obtaining a privilege tax license, as practicing dentists are required to do.

No offense is shown to have been committed by appellant, and the judgment is reversed, and cause remanded."

PEOPLE v. SCHREIBER.

(Supreme Court of Illinois, 1911. 250 Ill. 345, 95 N. E. 189.) Serenes T. Schreiber was convicted of an offense, and brings error. Affirmed.

HAND, J. This was an information filed by the state's attorney of Winnebago county, in the county court of said county, charging Serenes T. Schreiber, the plaintiff in error, with having violated section 1 of an act entitled "An act to prevent and punish frauds in the practice of law," by holding himself out as an attorney at law, and by rep

7 See State v. Bryan, 98 N. C. 644, 4 S. E. 522 (1887), where although the defendant appeared in court in behalf of a client he purported to do so as agent and it was held that he was not shown to be practicing since there was no evidence that he charged anything or held himself out as a practicing attorney. "Moreover, if the suit was brought by an attorney not qualified to practice, that was no good cause to dismiss the plaintiff's suit, but the attorney should himself suffer the punishment imposed by law."-Maxwell, J., in Rader v. Snyder, 3 W. Va. 413, 414 (1869).

*

*

resenting that he was authorized to practice law, when he had not been regularly licensed to practice law in the courts of this state. * A motion to quash the information was made and overruled, and the plea of not guilty was entered, and upon a trial before a jury plaintiff in error was found guilty, and the court, after overruling a motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, entered judgment on the verdict, sentencing the plaintiff in error to pay a fine of $300 and the costs of prosecution, and that he be committed to the county jail of Winnebago county until the fine and costs were paid. This writ of error has been sued out to review that judgment. *

* *

It is finally stated the verdict is not supported by the evidence. It appears that the plaintiff in error maintained an office in the city of Rockford; that it consisted of a main office and a consultation room; that he employed a stenographer; that he had quite a pretentious law library; that his business consisted of making collections, preparing conveyances, examining abstracts, negotiating loans, closing real estate deals, advising parties as to their legal rights, and generally performing such services for his clients as are usually performed by attorneys at law, and that he stated to his clients that he was a lawyer; that upon his office door and window and office stationery he had his name, followed by the words "Collection Attorney," and that he had formed a connection with attorneys and collection agencies throughout the United States and Canada, with whom he exchanged business; that he did all the law business he could get to do, with the exception that he says he did not try cases in courts of record. It is obvious the plaintiff in error was holding himself out as an attorney at law. He urges, however, that as he placed the word "collection" before the word "attorney" upon his signs and advertisements he is not guilty of a violation of the statute. Where an office and office force are maintained by a party who is engaged in the law business without having been duly admitted to the bar, he cannot escape the pains and penalties of the statute by placing after his name and before the word "attorney" some word or phrase which, at most, only shows to the ordinary observer that he is specializing in the practice of law. The evi

8 "A person who makes it his business to act and who does act for and by the warrant of others in legal formalities, negotiations, or proceedings, practices law (Savings Bank v. Ward, 100 U. S. 195, 25 L. Ed. 621 [1879]; În re Duncan, 83 S. C. 186, 65 S. E. 210, 24 L. R. A. [N. S.] 750, 18 Ann. Cas. 657 [1909]); and when his acts consist in advising clients touching legal matters pending or to be brought before a court of record, or in preparing pleadings or proceedings for use in a court of record, or in appearing before a court of record, either directly or by a partner or proxy, he is practicing law in a court of record (Bank v. Risley, 6 Hill [N. Y.] 375 [1844]; Abercrombeie v. Jordan, 8 Q. B. D. 187 [1881]; In re Simmons, 15 Q. B. D. 348 [1885]).”—Sanner, J., in In re Bailey, 50 Mont. 365, 367, 146 Pac. 1101, 1102 (1915).

A lawyer practices "if he holds himself out to the public as an attorney at law and is rendering some services in a professional way-such as comes to him."-Ladd, J., in Barr v. Cardell, 173 Iowa, 18, 155 N. W. 312, 316, 317 (1915).

On what constitutes practicing law, see note in 18 Ann. Cas, 658.

dence fully establishes that the plaintiff in error was holding himself out as authorized to practice law without being regularly licensed to practice law, and upon his own showing he was guilty of a violation of the statute.

Finding no reversible error in this record, the judgment of the county court will be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

In re PACE et al.

(Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 1915. 170 App. Div. 818, 156 N. Y. Supp. 641.)

Proceeding against Francis P. Pace and H. B. S. Stimpson, attorneys, charging them with assisting a corporation to practice law in violation of Penal Law, § 280. On motion to confirm the referee's report. Respondents censured.

SCOTT, J. The New York County Lawyers' Association has charged these respondents, composing the law firm of Pace & Stimpson, with unprofessional conduct, in that they directly assisted a corporation, known as the "Corporation Company of Delaware," to "render or furnish legal services or advice, or to furnish attorneys or counsel or to render legal services of any kind in actions or proceedings of any nature or in any other way or manner," in violation of section 280 of the Penal Law.

The substance of the charges is accurately stated by the official referee as follows: "That the Corporation Company of Delaware at divers times during the year 1914, in violation of section 280 of the Penal Law of the state of New York, advertised by means of printed circulars and pamphlets that it maintained an office in New York City, furnished legal advice, services, and counsel, and in particular the advice and service of the respondents in and about the organization ot corporations under the laws of Delaware. That respondents, in violation of said section of the Penal Law, assisted the said corporation in said unlawful acts by authorizing and permitting the corporation to advertise and by agreeing to furnish their services and advice to such persons as might or did respond to said advertisements, and by furnishing the use of an office in the borough of Manhattan to the said corporation for the purpose of carrying on its said unlawful business, and by themselves distributing the said advertisements. Further, that the corporation actually has furnished legal services and advice through the respondents in and about the organization of corporations under the laws of Delaware, and that the respondents as its agents and employés for a consideration paid to them by it assisted such corporation in all these respects."

The facts in this case are not in dispute; the respondents having met the charges with the utmost fairness and frankness, stipulating