to protect unworthy members, and would conclude that all lawyers were rascals.

American Bar Association Code of Ethics, Canon 7:

"It is the right of any lawyer without fear or favor, to give proper advice to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel, generally after communication with the lawyer of whom the complaint is made."

Canon 29:

66

Lawyers should expose without fear or favor before the proper tribunals corrupt or dishonest conduct in the profession, and should accept without hesitation employment against a member of the bar who has wronged his client. The counsel upon the trial of a cause in which perjury has been committed owe it to the profession and to the public to bring the matter to the knowledge of the prosecuting authorities."

§ 73. RIGHT to Defend an ACCUSED ATTORNEY. For the same reason that it is one lawyer's duty to institute a prosecution against a fellow lawyer who has seemingly been guilty of crime, it is a duty of others to whom the accused may appeal to defend him in his trial. Justice demands that both accuser and accused should find champions to set forth their respective rights. If the accusation is unjust, it should not prevail. If the

attorney is innocent, proof of his innocence will lift a cloud from the profession of law; if he is guilty, proof of his guilt, and a summary disbarment from the profession, will likewise elevate the profession in the estimation of the community.

§ 74. NOT TO FORCE TRIAL WHEN OPPOSING LAWYER IS ILL OR UNDER BEREAVEMENT. Although it is the duty of every lawyer who has a case pending in court to refrain from prolonging litigation and to oppose any such attempts on the part of the opponent's lawyer, yet there are occasions when this general duty yields ground to a special set of circumstances. If a situation has arisen, without fault of the party concerned, under which the opponent's case cannot be properly presented, it would be manifestly unfair to urge immediate trial. Justice fairly demands continuance until such a time as the disability be removed.

If the opposing attorney is ill, not actually confined to his bed, but in such a physical condition that he could not undergo the strain of trial and do justice to his client's case, the case should be continued by agreement. There is little glory to be gained from a victory over a sick man. Courtesy to a brother attorney would prompt a lawyer to allow him an even chance in a contest of professional skill.

The same would be true if the attorney were undergoing a great mental anxiety, such as the critical illness of a wife, or child, or other person in whose welfare he was profoundly interested. To force trial at such a time would be nothing short of brutal.

The courts, however, would doubtless grant a continuance under any of the circumstances referred to, even against the protest of the adversary; but the fact that the courts stand ready to deal justly does not lessen the attorney's duty to be humane to his opponent.

If a case may be tried as well on a different date, it would be ungenerous of a lawyer to insist upon immediate trial, when he knew that such trial would be extremely inconvenient to the opposite lawyer. Suppose, for example, the lawyer had just completed a long and arduous trial in a distant part of the State; it would be a hardship upon him to insist that the case go to trial the very day of his return and before he had had time to review his evidence and get his witnesses together.

American Bar Association Code of Ethics, Canon 24: "As to incidental matters pending the trial, not affecting the merits of the cause or working substantial prejudice to the rights of the client, such as forcing the opposite lawyer to trial when he is under affliction or bereavement, forcing the trial

on a particular day, to the injury of the opposite lawyer, when no harm will result from a trial at a different time, agreeing to an extension of time for signing a bill of exceptions, cross-interrogatories, and the like, the lawyer must be allowed to judge. In such matters no client has a right to demand that his counsel shall be illiberal, or that he shall do anything therein repugnant to his own sense of honor and propriety."

§ 75. NOT TO LAY UNDUE STRESS UPON TECH

NICALITIES.

One of the causes of reproach of our system of justice is the frequency with which apparently trivial technicalities defeat the ends of justice. The courts are reproached for setting free a wealthy criminal because of some technical error in the proceedings by which he was convicted. Lawyers are reproached for their proneness to seek out, and to argue, technical objections that have no material bearing upon the issue and which serve no purpose except to impose a delay upon proceedings that should promptly be terminated. These criticisms of lawyers and courts are frequently just, but in many cases the real fault is in an antiquated system of justice that is, in our day, gradually giving way to a more modern and less technical procedure.

The spirit of the times is to adopt the more

liberal attitude and to consider the substance rather than the form in which it is embodied. Many lawyers of the present day disdain to take advantage of a mere formal defect in an opponent's pleading, unless the opponent is clearly seeking an unjust end and the means of opposing him are doubtful or inadequate. In other words, their aim is to see that justice is done and, unless it will further the ends of justice to take advantage of the technicality, they ignore it entirely.

In the examination of witnesses, if the opponent violates the rules of evidence, it is not always wise to interpose objections. Unless he is seeking to introduce evidence that will injure his adversary, or by prolonging examination to weary and vex a hostile witness, it is usually wiser to let him go on than to interrupt proceedings by frequent objections.

§ 76. NOT TO TRY TO OVER-REACH THE OTHER THROUGH QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES.

There was a certain lawyer of whom it was said that he delighted in outwitting his opponent by obtaining an agreed statement of facts as to the entire case or some portion of it. The statement would seem fair enough upon its face, yet there would be a hidden defect that was nearly always fatal to the opposite side. Such a practice as this cannot be too severely condemned.