24 AUGUST 1867, Page 11

LEGAL ETIQUETTES.

AQUESTION which was originally started by a journeyman engineer in the Pall Mall Gazette, and was briefly argued in the same columns by two barristers, has now been more fully discussed by Mr. Albert V. Dicey-Zia the last number of the Fortnightly .Review,—How far does the Bar answer to the defini- tion of a trades' union ? One barristerisaid the profession was as free as air, which is not a bad comparison, for in our great towns air is a very expensive commodity. The other barrister alluded to Circuit Courts, and the irresponsible power:of the Benchers, and Maintained that the unwritten law of the profession was as elastic in its comprehension, and as rigid in its infliction of punishment, as part8 of tlie unwritten law of Xngland. Mr. A: V. Dicey does not follow either disputant, bu seeks to refer the rules that are known to exist to a wider principle, and to find the answer to the question in the nature of the Bar, and in the protection of which it is the subject. We shall take the liberty of diverging alike from Mr. Dicey and his precursors, and shall attempt to show that the etiquette of the Bar is by no means necessary to its position, and no increase of its strength or its lustre.

We may fairly place the legal profession on the same level as the others which claim to be liberal, and to which no gentleman need be ashamed to belong. The circle of such professions is indeeci constantly extending, and fathers are ready to make their sons what they would never have been made by their own fathers. " Going to make his son an artist !" says Major Pendeenis. " By gad ! in my time a fellow would as soon have thought of making his son a hairdresser." But though we have not yet come to that, we have seen business viewed very differently, and civil engineering far more highly esteemed. In many Continental States the army is still the only calling of a gentleman, and the consequences are titled beggary and dependence on heiresses. This is not the English view of respectability, and it is well that gentlemen should not feel too proud to work. Yet when once they condescend to work they are sure to come into competition with others who are not gentlemen, and who are gradually raising themselves by their exertions. It is against these men that the restrictions of the liberal professions are aimed, and etiquette does its best to second those restrictions. Certain regiments keep out poor men by sheer expense. In others a dead set is made at one whose father was iu trade. With the purchase system of course the Army is necessarily given up to men of some means, and the disproportion of pay to purchase money would deter others from choosing such a career. At the Bar, on the other hand, the danger does not proceed from wealth. The profession is expensive, but success cannot be bought. The old theory was, that unless barristers were deterred by severe penalties they would toady and fawn on attorneys, while the attorneys were supposed to look np to barristers with such reverence that slight condescension would lead to golden rewards. It is thought even now that if a barrister was allOwed to go into the coffee-room of an hotel while he was on circuit, he would be sure to embrace the first attorney whom he saw at a breakfast-table. It is not every circuit that allows its members to go inside a hotel. On the Western Circuit, we believe, barristers are still compelled to take lodgings. How far this rule is the result of the bad arrangement of English hotels, and their systematic attempt to force all guests into the expense of private sitting-rooms, may be a fit inquiry for the papers which are now counselling English travel. We do not object to the custom, though of course it is attended with expense. But we think it is foolish to make a point of it, and to decree solemnly that barristers who go to hotels shall take sitting-rooms. This prudish fear of attorneys, and of the contamination of their society, is like the feeling of an old maid in a railway carriage with one gentleman. As for a barrister dining with an attorney, that is a high crime and mis- demeanour, which in one instance was visited with a fine of five guitieas. Yet it might surely be left to a man's own taste whether he will dine with an attorney or not. There are some attorneys of very good standing, university men, men of intellect and culture, who are far superior to some barristers by whose side you sit at mess. Yet barristers are expected to imitate Dr. Johnson, who when dining with some booksellers remained in an uncomfortable place close to the fire, because it was the head of the table, and he would not let any of them sit above him. They are not even to emulate Brummell, who agreed to dine with a City man on condition of the host never saying anything about it, and who came three-quarters of an hour late to show his sense of the favour he was conferring. And this law is the more singular, as it is thought quite right for a barrister to marry an attorney's daughter. We do not know if after that he is allowed to dine with his father- in-law, but if not, that would merely be the reductio ad absurdum of a system which is very near that already. We can quite understand that a man would be looked down upon if he dined with a thieves' attorney. Yet surely the instinct of a gentleman is sufficient to keep him from such a fall. Nor is it certain that any number of dinners would procure a man business, for even thieves' attorneys are apt to look to a man's verdicts as the index of his ability. If 'all men had equal talents, there might be some fear of competition being carried on in an underhand way. But

talents are not equal, and the beat are sometimes unaccompanied by the perseverance which is indispensable to legal success. Oue man has had his chance, and has lost it. Another man only waits for his chance, in order to make use of it. A countless string of others would be ready enough to work, but the work is not an essential, and as the life is pleasant, and the mess dinners good, that will serve to wile away the time till the attainment of the seven years' standing.

Men who have reached that point, whether they have business or not, are apt to be ultra-conservative in all that regards their own profession. They are accustomed to the rules, which at first were irksome, and they do not expect any gain to themselves by change. The wine fund would suffer if absurd fines were not inflicted. When the voice of the singer is hushed there is amusement in the proceedings of the Circuit Court. But younger men do feel the rules irksome. The pitfalls of law are constantly gaping before their unwary footsteps. They see the folly of many regulationi more clearly, or avow their opinion more openly, than is doue by their seniors. But they are absolutely powerless. A junior who was not a member of the mess might as well stay away from the circuit. On this we quite agree with Mr. Dicey. It is true that the man who has the largest practice on one of the greater circuits. is not a member of his mess, but his position is not comfortable,.

eitherwto himself or his fellows, and both sides would probably be glad if such an annoyance could be got over. Whether a man is old or young, fully employed or idle, a Philistine or a Bohemian, he does not like to feel that he is the only one out of a hundred' who may not dine at a certain table. To be in court all day

with other barristers, to talk of them as his friends, to hold briefs-

with them, to confer with them, and yet to be excluded from their society, would be no slight penalty for an offence against profes- sional honour. But even if such grave penalties are rare, the minor yokes of etiquette are sufficiently galling. A barrister must wear a black waistcoat. He must not bring a blue bag into court.

He must not buy a red bag. A red bag must be given him by a.

Q.C., and he must pay a great deal more than its value to the wine fund of the mess. We do not dwell on these, as inconveniences, but as

follies, yet they are typical of many of the more serious kinds of re- strictions. Mr. Dicey quotes the grand rule that a barrister may not solicit briefs, but he does not notice the infinite ramifications into.

which it develops. Some say a barrister may not tell an attorney that he is coming on the circuit where the attorney lives ; others add that he may not ask a friend or relation to tell an attorney that he is coming that circuit, or ask a friend to ask an attorney to give him business. If a friend chooses to do this of his own accord there is no harm in it. But you may not jog your friend's memory. If you want a place under Government there is no harm in asking fcir it, in getting others to ask for it, in asking others to. get others to ask for it. A barrister may move all his friends and acquaintances to produce him an assistant-commissionership at the rate of five guineas a day. But a guinea brief is far more valuable and more sacred, and must be adored in silence. The impiety of those who would take less than a guinea is a fit subject for legal excommunication. Yet if instead of paying 801. to be called to the Bar a man pays a fee for a yearly certificate under the Bar, he may take any number of half-guineas. Some of our best judges have been pleaders, and were called to the Bar late in life, after- making their name and connection in a lower capacity. We believe that now some barristers accept pleaders' fees, though their conduct is irregular. But what attorney will give a man a.

guinea to join and take issue ? - The etiquette of the Bar might do some good if it overlooked these small matters, and aimed at raising the tone of the pro- fession. But anything that is done in this direction is done slowly, and against the existing regulations rather than by means of them- The professional tone of the Bar, says Mr. Dicey, rather encourages than discourages the idea that men are not bound to do the work

for which they are paid. This, no doubt, is partly owing to the strange, old theory that the counsel's fee is an honorarium, and,

therefore, not recoverable by law. Strict reciprocity relieves the counsel from being answerable to his clients if he neglects their- cases, or hands over his briefs to a junior. Now, in theabsence of a statute to assimilate the state of the Bar to that of the Faculty, and to relegate the ancient theory to the dead black letter,, this would surely be a good field 'for the exercise of etiquette. If

Sir George Bowyer does not reform the Benchers, and if the- recent attack on the powers of the Circuit Court by the very same- barrister that threw doubt on their reality is not repeated with success, we must either have some change from within, or the youth of the English Bar will be ripe for revolution.