ACTIVITIES RELATING TO OIL & GAS LAW Interstate Oil Compact Commission: Member, Legal Committee, 1963–1970. Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association: Member, 1955present. Member, Law & Engineering Committee, 1957-1965. Member, Executive Committee, 1963-1965. Regional Vice-President, 1966-1967. Member, Executive Committee, 1966-1967. Member, Membership Committee, 1966-1967. ACTIVITIES: VARIOUS Director, University Co-Op, Inc., 1965-1966. Former Member, Judge Advocate's Association. District Councilman, X-Students' Association, University of Texas, 1957. Chairman, Youth Development Council of Tom Green County, 1956-1957. Chairman, The Salvation Army Advisory Board, San Angelo, 19561957. Member, Society of Former Special Agents of the F.B.I. (Chairman, Austin Chapter, 1964-1965). Vice-President, North Austin Rotary Club, 1966-1967; President, 1967-1968. MAIN AREAS OF INTEREST Evidence; Professional Ethics; Torts; Trial Advocacy. PUBLICATIONS AND ARTICLES "Insurance is Prejudicial," 16 Texas Bar J. 63 (1953). "Counseling on Oil & Gas Investments," 1 The Practical Lawyer #8, p. 42 (1955). "Introduction," Insurance Issue, 38 Tex. L. Rev. 149 (1959). "Guidelines to Professional Responsibility," 39 Tex. L. Rev. 391-425 (1960). "Professional Ethics," 24 Texas Bar J. 99 (February 1961). "The Testifying Advocate," 41 Tex. L. Rev. 477-498 (April 1963). "The Proposed Amendments to the Texas Canons of Ethics," 26 Texas Bar J. 996 (1963). "Re-Evaluation of the Canons of Professional Ethics: A Reviser's Viewpoint," 33 Tenn. L. Rev. 132-144 (1966). "Revision of the A.B. Canons of Ethics," 21 The Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York 472 (1966). "Code of Legal Ethics: Utility or Futility?" 2 Arizona State Bar Journal 5 (1966). "Code of Ethics for Lawyers & Judges," 2 Revista Juridica de la Universidad Inter-Americana de Puerto Rico 30 (1965). "A Preview of the Proposed Code of Professional Responsibility," 53 A.B.A. J. 901 (1967). "The Impact of the Code Upon the Unauthorized Practice of Law," 47 N.C. L. Rev. 633 (1969). "Professional Responsibility: What's New About the New Code?" 41 Penn. B. Ass'n. Q. 127 (1970). "The American Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility: An Introduction," 48 Texas L. Rev. 255 (1970). CHAPTERS Cha. 22, Stayton, Texas Forms, "Conveyances-Deeds, Easements, Plats, & Dedications," pp. 643-736 (Vol. 4); 1959. Cha. 31, Stayton, Texas Forms, "Insurance," pp. 528-545, Vol. 5; 1959. Cha. 10, Personal Injury Litigation in Texas, State Bar of Texas (1961), 503551. BOOK REVIEWS Book Review of Trial of Dr. Adams, The, 38 Texas L. Rev. 937 (1959). Book Review of Insurance and Public Policy, Kimball, 39 N. Carolina L. Rev. 210 (1961). Book Review of Professional Responsibility and Federal Tax Practice, Bittker, 60 Law Library J. 70 (1967). Preface On August 14, 1964, at the request of President Lewis F. Powell, Jr., the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association created the Special Committee on Evaluation of Ethical Standards to examine the current Canons of Professional Ethics and to make recommendations for changes. Your Committee has been at work since that time with the extremely competent assistance of its Reporter, Professor John F. Sutton, Jr., of the University of Texas School of Law. Since August of 1967 we have been aided by Mrs. Sarah Ragle Weddington, a member of the Texas Bar, who has served as Assistant to Mr. Sutton. The supporting research work was conducted under the supervision of Mr. Sutton in his capacity as Director of a research project for the American Bar Foundation. We also acknowledge with thanks the effective help of Frederick R. Franklin of the American Bar Association Division of Professional Service Activities, who served as Staff Assistant in the crowded latter months of our work. After substantial study and a number of meetings, we concluded that the present Canons needed revision in four principal particulars: (1) There are important areas involving the conduct of lawyers that are either only partially covered in or totally omitted from the Canons; (2) Many Canons that are sound in substance are in need of editorial revision; (3) Most of the Canons do not lend themselves to practical sanctions for violations; and (4) Changed and changing conditions in our legal system and urbanized society require new statements of professional principles. The original 32 Canons of Professional Ethics were adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908. They were based principally on the Code of Ethics adopted by the Alabama State Bar Association in 1887, which in turn had been borrowed largely from the lectures of Judge George Sharswood, published in 1854 under the title of Professional Ethics. Since then a limited number of amendments have been adopted on a piecemeal basis. The thought of studying the Canons of Professional Ethics with a view of possible revision is not a new one,. In 1928, 1933 and 1937 special committees of the American Bar Association, appointed for the purpose of investigating the subject, made reports recommending overall revisions, but nothing came of these efforts. In 1954 a distinguished committee of the American Bar Foundation made extensive studies of the Canons and recommended further work in the field, but the subject lay fallow for ten more years until the creation of our Committee. As far back as 1934 Mr. Justice (later Chief Justice) Harlan Fiske Stone, in his memorable address entitled The Public Influence of the Bar, made this observation: Before the Bar can function at all as a guardian of the public interests committed to its care, there must be appraisal and comprehension of the new conditions, and the changed relationship of the lawyer to his clients, to his professional brethren and to the public. That appraisal must pass beyond the petty details of form and manners which have been so largely the subject of our Codes of Ethics, to more fundamental consideration of the way in which our professional activities affect the welfare of society as a whole. Our canons of ethics for the most part are generalizations designed for an earlier era. Our studies led us unanimously to the conclusion that the need for change in the statements of professional responsibility of lawyers could not be met by merely amending the present Canons. A new Code of Professional Responsibility could be the only answer. While the opinions of the Committee on Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association have been published and given fairly wide distribution with resulting value to the bench and bar, they certainly are not conclusive as to the adequacy of the present Canons. Because the opinions are necessarily interpretations of the existing Canons, they tend to support the Canons and are critical of them only in the most unusual case. Since a large number of requests for opinions from the Committee on Professional Ethics deal with the etiquette of law practice, advertising, partnership names, announcements and the like, there has been a tendency for many lawyers to assume that this is the exclusive field of interest of the Committee and that it is not concerned with the more serious questions of professional standards and obligations. The present Canons are not an effective teaching instrument and they fail to give guidance to young lawyers beyond the language of the Canons themselves. There is no organized interrelationship of the Canons and they often overlap. They are not cast in language designed for disciplinary enforcement and many abound with quaint expressions of the past. The present Canons, nevertheless, contain many provisions that are sound in substance, and all of these have been brought forward in the proposed Code. In our studies and meetings we have relied heavily upon the monumental Legal Ethics (1953) of Henry S. Drinker, who served with great distinction for nine years as Chairman of the Committee on Professional Ethics (known in his day as the Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances) of the American Bar Association. We have had constant recourse to the opinions of the Committee on Professional Ethics. These opinions were collected and published in a single volume in 1967; since that time we have been favored with all opinions of the Committee in loose-leaf form. Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have necessitated intensive studies of certain Canons. Among the landmark cases in this regard are NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 83 S. Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963), Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Virginia, 377 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1113, 12 L.Ed.2d 89 (1964), and United Mine Workers v. Ill. State Bar Ass'n, 389 U.S. 217, 88 S. Ct. 353, 19 L.Ed.2d 426 (1967). It is not here necessary to comment in detail on these far-reaching rulings since they are familiar to all lawyers. i Also, in recent years the Supreme Court of the United States has made important pronouncements in the areas of admission to the bar and discipline of lawyers. Without attempting an exhaustive catalogue in this regard, we refer to Schware v. Bd. of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 77 S. Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 96 (1957), Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 87 S. Ct. 625, 17 L.Ed.2d 754 (1967), and In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 88 S. Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968). Our Committee has held meetings with 37 major units of the profession and has corresponded with more than 100 additional groups. The entire Committee has met a total of 71 days and the editorial subcommittee of three members has met 28 additional days. Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., of Chicago, Illinois, Director of the American Bar Foundation, John G. Bonomi, of New York, New York, a member of the A.B.A. Special Committee on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement, and Paul Carrington, of Dallas, Texas, a member of the A.B.A. Special Committee on Availability of Legal Services, attended many of our meetings and each made invaluable suggestions in the course of our deliberations. Lawrence E. Walsh, of New York, New York, served as a member of our Committee in the first two years of its existence and rendered distinctive service in that period. "The Code of Professional Responsibility was adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association on August 12, 1969 to become effective for American Bar Association members on January 1, 1970; as amended by the House of Delegates on February 24, 1970." Copyright 1970 by American Bar Association CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Table of Contents Page 1 PREAMBLE AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT CANON 1. A LAWYER SHOULD ASSIST IN MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY AND COMPETENCE Ethical Considerations Disciplinary Rules DR 1-101 DR 1-102 DR 1-103 Maintaining Integrity and Competence of the Legal Profession Disclosure of Information to Authorities CANON 2. A LAWYER SHOULD ASSIST THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN FULFILLING ITS DUTY Selection of a Lawyer: Professional Notices and Listings Financial Ability to Employ Counsel: Generally Financial Ability to Employ Counsel: Persons Able to Pay Reasonable Fees ... Professional Notices, Letterheads, Offices, and Law Lists 3 33333 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 9 DR 2-101 DR 2-102 DR 2-103 DR 2-104 Suggestion of Need of Legal Services A LAWYER SHOULD ASSIST IN PREVENTING THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW Ethical Considerations 15 15 15 DR 3-101 Aiding Unauthorized Practice of Law 15 15 DR 3-103 Forming a Partnership with a Non-Lawyer 15 CANON 4. 16 16 Disciplinary Rules DR 4-101 Preservation of Confidences and Secrets of a Client CANON 5. A LAWYER SHOULD EXERCISE INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT ON 17 17 18 DR 5-101 Refusing Employment When the Interests of the Lawyer May Impair 20 20 DR 5-102 DR 5-103 Withdrawal as Counsel When the Lawyer Becomes a Witness 20 21 DR 5-104 Limiting Business Relations with a Client 21 DR 5-105 Refusing to Accept or Continue Employment if the Interests of A LAWYER SHOULD REPRESENT A CLIENT ZEALOUSLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS Duty of the Lawyer to a Client Duty of the Lawyer to the Adversary System of Justice |