don't really know. I know of no case where anybody has been disciplined solely for failing to follow a minimum fee schedule. All I can base my opinion on is hearing Mr. Goldfarb's testimony and reading it and, as I heard it and read it, the Virginia Bar Association took exception to the American Bar Association's opinion 302 and wrote its own opinion which is contrary to it. Now, it is the local association's ruling that governs disciplinary actions and, if they don't want to follow our interpretations of the canons of ethics and the code of professional responsibility, we have no way of compelling them to do so. Whether the Virginia courts would have held in a disbarment case or disciplinary case, that the Virginia rule of conduct was improper and should not have been enforced or whether they would have enforced it, I have no way of knowing.

But if the lawyers were faced with the ruling of their own State bar association that the course of conduct which they were called upon to follow was unethical, that would amount to a threat of a sanction, certainly.

Senator TUNNEY. Do you think the Congress ought to act?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. No, I really don't. I think that the action is necessary at the State level because the situations vary materially from State to State. It is difficult for me to keep from going back to my own experience but, in hearing the method of handling real estate transactions in Virginia, for example, it is completely different from the way they are handled in my own State. And you are faced with a given situation in each State, metropolitan area or locality, which has to be dealt with locally.

Senator TUNNEY. What I am suggesting is this: Some people would state that it is a violation of the antitrust laws to have minimum fee schedules. I would assume that in due course the courts will interpret the antitrust laws either that minimum fee schedules are a violation of the antitrust laws or that they are not. In the Goldfarb case, the lower court has already made a decision.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I assume so and, for that reason, I could express no opinion on that.

Senator TUNNEY. Right. That of course, is correct. However, the antitrust laws can always be amended. As a matter of fact, a bill which I have introduced recently, has passed the Senate and, hopefully, will pass the House which would amend the antitrust laws if signed by the President.

And it would be very easy for the Congress, assuming a majority voted for it, of course, to amend the antitrust laws to provide that minimum fee schedules are a violation of antitrust laws. Now, that is what I meant when I asked, should the Congress act now. We have to acknowledge that most of the Members of Congress are attorneys. What I am trying to get from you is an opinion as to whether or not Congress should legislatively affirm what the ABA has stated in its opinions.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I would not think it would be necessary, frankly. I think it is largely an ethical question and I think that the situation, if a situation in fact, exists, as I am sure it does in certain States, is correcting itself. I know, for example, that many States have already

repealed or abandoned the fee schedules that they had and I think that the work of this committee and other things that are taking place right now, work will correct the situation without the necessity for Congress to act.

The ABA, as Mr. Smith's letter indicates, is making a number of studies in the field and will no doubt come up with recommendations. Particularly, there is an in-depth study being made in the real estate law field and, when that is available, I think we will know a lot more about what the present situation is so that internal action can be taken.

I would hope the profession can police itself without having to be policed from outside.

Senator TUNNEY. I had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Smith and want the public record to indicate that I was very impressed by his positions on these issues, and his interest in seeing a self-policing by the Bar of itself. I think he is going to be a first-rate President of the American Bar Association. I was very impressed by him.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you, sir. He is a good friend of mine and I am inclined to agree with you and I have been instructed by him, of course, to offer any form of cooperation to this committee it might desire in the conduct of these hearings and investigations.

Senator TUNNEY. Well, you have certainly done so today and I appreciate your statement.

I am concerned, as a lawyer-as I am aware you must be, by the charges that are made that lawyers by their very training are relativists and, therefore, find it very difficult on matters of principle or ethics to come down hard on one side of the fence or the other. And I think that the recent meeting of the ABA, in which there was a great deal of discussion relating to the number of lawyers that were involved in present difficulties in the executive branch, demonstrates that there is a great deal of soul-searching going on in the bar association, as it relates to the ethical conduct of lawyers. I am deeply concerned about it, too.

We had testimony yesterday, Mr. Armstrong, individuals, who were not professionals, and are having a great deal of trouble with the purchase of a home, or the purchase of a car. They need legal assistance and they cannot get it, or the legal assistance they get is completely inadequate. I must say that it make me, at times, ashamed of our mutual profession.

I think lawyers have done a tremendous amount in this country to make our democracy truly one that is based upon the principle of law and the responsiveness of legislatures and the Congress to individual citizens and the ability to get a problem settled in court rather than out on the street. And it is clear, as I have indicated, that the majority of the Members of Congress are lawyers and the majority of your State legislators are lawyers, so we have a great deal about which to be proud. On the other hand, I think we have an awful lot we can be ashamed of, too. If you recognize that the studies show that 30,000 decisions a day are made by citizens that ought to be made with the benefit and advice of attorneys and are not made with the benefit and advice of attorneys, and the major reason for it is

24-625-74-10

that attorneys have fees which the average consumer-citizen feels are too high-and which are in the case of many really too highyou realize that we are going to have to do something to achieve some greater access to attorneys for the indivdual citizen.

Now, I know that I am suggesting remedies that go far beyond your testimony today on minimum fee schedules, but if you have any opinions, I would certainly like to hear them.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I do. I share with you the views of our common profession. I think that the reason that you and I are concerned about it is because we are proud of our profession and of the fact that it has maintained such a high level historically, so that any deviation from that level is a matter of concern. And I think the American Bar Association is also concerned about it and has demonstrated that concern.

Its position, as I understand it, is that any person who finds himself in need of legal advice is entitled to, and should have access to, the advice and benefit of counsel whose primary and sole responsibility is to him as a client.

Senator TUNNEY. Now, that is a fine statement to make, but to carry it out is a very complex thing.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. The American Bar has sponsored many things in an effort to do it. I think you have been furnished with a copy of this book?

Senator TUNNEY. Yes.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. It came out about 3 years ago, entitled "Lawyers for People of Moderate Means." It is as good a summary as was available at the time of what's being done.

Questions of specialization, questions of the use of paraprofessionals, questions of the proper placement of the law school graduates, who will be coming out in great quantities soon; all of these things, I think, bear on the situation with which we are concerned. It is not a matter which can be legislated into, or out of, existence.

And let me somewhat facetious for a moment, but when I was involved in the late war, I was on an air base where they had a number of airplane crashes, and one day the commanding officer put out an order and said that there will be no more airplane crashes on this base. You just can't do it that way. You have to go to causes and correct the causes and go to what is needed and supply what is needed. This is an internal problem and as I suggested it is through the organized bar that it can best be met.

Admittedly, the efforts so far haven't been entirely successful. But there is a tendency in any profession to pick out the worst cases and hold them up as typical. No doubt, there have been 30,000 people that have had to make decisions that they should have had the help of legal advice in making, and didn't have it. I would venture to guess that during that same period there have been 3 million that have had that advice.

Again I say that I recognize the problem and suggest that the American Bar and the organized bar is doing its best to meet it. Senator TUNNEY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Armstrong. I appreciate your testimony very much and want to thank you for

appearing on behalf of Chesterfield Smith and for your own scholarly research on the matter as it relates to the bar.

We very much appreciate the testimony.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you for this opportunity.

Senator TUNNEY. Our next witness is Leonard M. Ring, president, Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

STATEMENT OF LEONARD M. RING, ESQ., PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL LAWYERS OF AMERICA; ACCOMPANIED BY JACK TRAVIS, TREASURER

Mr. RING. I am Leonard M. Ring of Chicago and with me today is Mr. Jack Travis of Jackson, Miss., the national treasurer of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. He stays very close with me since my election to be sure that I don't give all of our association's assets away.

I am a practicing lawyer of the city of Chicago, although I must confess that with my present office I find that a luxury. I hardly have the time for it but I do want you to know that prior to being elected president of the association, I was first vice president and member of its board and perhaps more to this point a member of the ethics committee, which has the responsibility for fees and schedules. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I know you are acquainted with many of the members of our association from your own State and, particularly, some of our past presidents. We have three from your home State and, as you know, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America is the largest trial bar association in the world and the second largest in membership in this country to the ABA. We have 27,000 members.

We are primarily engaged in representing individuals that is, individual rights in all kinds of consumer litigation. Of course, most of our work is related to litigation.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, while I have filed a prepared statement, it is not my practice to read it and, with your permission, I would just make some comments and follow it as closely as I can. Senator TUNNEY. You are a good trial lawyer.

Mr. RING. Thank you.

Senator TUNNEY. Your statement will be included in the record, and we would be happy to hear your comments.

Mr. RING. With respect to the subject of minimum fee schedules, I am very pleased to report to you that our association is perhaps, as far as I know, the only national bar association that has consistently opposed a minimum fee schedule to govern the bar.

While it is arguable, I admit that minimum fee schedules may have some benefit as a guide or suggested fee schedule, particularly for the younger lawyer who is just starting out. It seems to us, and we have taken a position on it-and incidentally, we had a position paper prepared by our ethics committee, which was adopted by our board of governors, opposing minimum fee schedules because it seemed to us that, in balance, the bad effect of it on the public far outweighed the little good that it may have for the benefit of the younger lawyer.

I know from my own experience, when I was a young lawyer, and it goes back to more than 20 years, that the minimum fee schedule prevailing in the city of Chicago for most legal services, the schedule was far more than I felt my own services were worth, and what I would have charged for light services in those days and yet, while it was not a real problem in the city of Chicago because, quite frankly, I, personally, never followed the minimum or suggested fee schedule of the Chicago Bar and the ABA in those days, nevertheless, the minimum fee schedule did deter many lawyers from charging a lesser fee because of a fear that there might be some reprisal or some violation of the Canons of Ethics of the Bar Association and, even though there would not be any reprisals, they felt it was professionally wrong to violate the Canons.

In addition, I think that this does happen and shouldn't-where a lawyer will show the minimum fee schedule to the client as justification for that fee or a higher fee showing the client that this is the minimum fee that the bar recommends. While I say that in some instances that may be well-justified because a lawyer's fee may, in a particular instance, equal or far exceed the minimum fee schedule, nevertheless, the mere fact that this is available, is not in the public interest and so, for that reason, I think to have a floor-to have a minimum suggested floor for certain fees in certain categories of cases, is not in balance, in the public interest and I think that they should be abolished.

Senator TUNNEY. Can I stop you at that point?

Isn't it true, as you suggest, that frequently a lawyer's services are far more valuable than the minimum fee suggested on the schedule; for instance, in the case of a large corporation, a lawyer who does perform a valuable service to that corporation can, through his skills, save the corporation millions and millions of dollars. A fee of several hundred thousand dollars or even, if it were to be performed over a period of time, in the millions of dollars, depending on the size of the firm and the number of lawyers working on the case, might be appropriate. But, on the other hand, where the minimum fee schedule hits hardest is on the moderate income individual or the low income individual who asks a lawyer for advice.

Do you see what I am saying?

Mr. RING. I think that is absolutely so, Senator Tunney. The Goldfarb case and Mr. Goldfarb's testimony, clearly pin-point that. Talking of lawyers, it is not uncommon in a city like Chicago where the hourly rates are $200 or $300 for some of the top professionals and I know nationally one prominent corporation lawver who was written up in one of our newspapers, who is charging something like $500 an hour. Those fees aren't uncommon. Those aren't really the problem because there you are dealing with multimillion dollar corporations and certainly people who can evaluate services and assess the services of the attorney and, also, have available to them in many instances their own legal staff. For instance, I happen to represent the Greater Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago and I know another lawyer, not myself, unfortunately, but one of the large firms in the city, who for services rendered-and I