REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL EDUCATION SEPTEMBER 18, 1900 To the President and Members of the Nebraska State Bar Association: Your Committee on Legal Education beg leave to submit the following report: Pursuant to the call of the chairman, C. J. Phelps and James H. McIntosh of the committee met with him at the Lindell Hotel at 8:00 o'clock P.M. on the 17th day of September, 1900. Messrs. Abbott and Hinshaw were absent. The committee, recognizing the need of a higher plane of legal education in this State, would submit the following suggestions: While we recognize the fact that there are many excellent lawyers who have not had the benefit of a collegiate education, yet we believe that in view of the general high standard of popular education throughout the State, and the great number of liberally educated people, and the higher demands which are continually being made upon the legal profession, the time will soon have passed when any of our people can successfully engage in any of the learned professions without having previously received a degree of mental training which would be equivalent to the education which is usually acquired by what is known as a collegiate course. Mental development comes from mental training. Without such training and development it is quite difficult for one to fully receive and assimilate the principles of the law to an extent sufficient to enable him to apply them to the complicated affairs of life and thus render efficient service in the matter of the protection of rights and the redress of wrongs. While it is often difficult to decide as to the exact degree of previous mental training one should have in order to prepare him for the legal profession, yet we think steps should be taken at once looking to the advancement of educational attainments, as a condition precedent to admission to the bar. Our State University is now proposing to so combine the courses of university training as to permit the academic student to give the greater portion of his last year's work to the study of the law, and, while receiving his degree of bachelor of arts only, he will be entitled to a year's credit in the law course, which, when extended to three years, will leave but two years' work to be done. This, however, can not be accomplished until, by an act of the legislature, the time for office reading (as a necessary prerequisite to examination) shall be made the same. If a person is permitted to apply for examination and be admitted to the bar after studying law in the office of a practicing attorney for two years, it will remain impossible for the law school course to be extended to three, as this would be offering a premium for office-trained lawyers in preference to law school graduates. Your committee is persuaded that there is no comparison between legitimate law school training and office study. In the former a methodical course of study is adopted and the foundation for future investigation is laid. To this is added the continuous, persistent study which is necessary to enable one to accomplish the work assigned. Then again the class quiz and discussion of topics studied must always be beneficial. Erroneous ideas will, inevitably, be formed. These are corrected before the lasting impression upon the mind is made by them-one of the best opportunities for this being the class quiz. In the latter (office study) these opportunities are not had, and the erroneous impressions become fixed. The office study always becomes something of a drag, and much time is lost in attending to matters outside the lines of study and which are an inevitable detriment. Close application becomes tiresome, and much of what otherwise would be a pleasure and an efficient aid in study becomes a burden and a detriment. In this connection we desire to call your attention to spurious but alleged law schools which have recently sprung up in this country-many of them without authority of law-which have no other mission but that of practicing a fraud upon unsuspecting and uninformed persons who desire to prepare for the practice of the profession. Of this class are the so-called "correspondence schools" and those whose principal mission it is to sell diplomas. We think the profession generally should discourage such enterprises and advise their younger and less informed friends to take. their legal training in reputable schools whose certificates of work done will be a recommendation and an honor instead of a positive injury in after life. Summarizing this report, your committee recommend, First-A higher general education as preliminary to the study of the law. Second-An extension of the time to be devoted to the study of law to three years. Third-That legitimate law school training be recommended in preference to office study. Fourth-That attendance upon or spending money in spurious and irregular so-called law schools be at all times discouraged. Respectfully submitted, M. B. REESE, Chairman. J. H. MCINTOSH. E. H. HINSHAW. REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON JANUARY 9, 1902 To the President of the Nebraska State Bar Association: SIR-The Committee on Legislation, appointed by the President of the Association to prepare and present to the legislature at its 1901 session certain measures recommended by this Association, reports as follows: The most important action had was that with reference to the establishment of the present Supreme Court Commission, appointed pursuant to chap. 25 of the laws of 1901, which took effect March 19, 1901, and is to be found in the Compiled Statutes for 1901 as sections 22e to 22k inclusive of chap. 19, title Courts, Supreme and District. This measure was accorded hearty support, and was among the first of the bills introduced in the legislature of general interest which became a law. Under the law as it stood prior to March 29, 1901, proceedings in error could be commenced at any time within twelve months after the rendition of the judgment sought to be reversed, whereas appeals in cases of equitable cognizance were required to be docketed in six months. There was no excuse for the allowance of a greater time to perfect proceedings in error than appeals, and a bill was prepared and introduced in the legislature which was passed, limiting the time for the commencement of proceedings in error to six months after the rendition of the judgment. This change in the law is found in sec. 592 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Two or three measures of considerable importance failed of passage. Under sec. 584 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in any case docketed in the Supreme Court twenty days or more before the commencement of a term, the case will stand for hearing at that term, but if less than twenty days intervene, the cause can not be submitted except by consent of all parties until the second term after the docketing of the case, except in such cases as are brought before the court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. A bill was introduced fixing the return day of a summons in error at a certain time after the filing of the case, regardless of the commencement of the term; but the bill failed. A bill was also introduced giving to the court the option to file written opinions or not as they chose in cases decided by them, except that in cases where a judgment was reversed a statement of the grounds of reversal was required to be made. The advocates of this measure foresaw that with twelve active members of the court a great number of opinions would be filed and a large amount of shelf room would be speedily occupied with the decisions of our court, unless some means was devised to avoid it. This measure likewise failed, but the court, whether in sympathy or not with the proposed change in the law, has adopted the practice of selecting from the opinions brought to it by the commission those which are to be officially reported. By common consent one of the greatest abuses permitted by the present statutes of this State is the giving of waste bonds in mortgage foreclosures by which, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, the mortgagor is left in possession of the premises with no restriction upon him except against carting off the buildings which may be upon the premises or burning them down. A bill was framed by your committee and introduced in the legislature providing that such bonds should cover the rental value of the premises pending the appeal, and providing for the same character of a bond as that required by sec. 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure in error proceedings in civil cases. This bill passed the house by a narrow margin, but was talked to death in the senate, and failed of passage because of political influences used to bring about its defeat. Your committee recommend that another attempt be made to amend the law in this regard so as to prevent the evils which continue possible by the giving of mere waste bonds in mortgage foreclosures. Respectfully submitted, R. W. BRECKENRIDGE. W. G. HASTINGS. ED P. SMITH. C. L. RICHARDS. Committee on Legislation. |