Juris Magazine- October, 1970

Juris DUQUESNE

UNIVERSITY,

PITTSBURGH,

PA.

Duquesne Law School Newsmagazine October, 1970

Vol. 4,

No.1

Pale Two

EDITORIAL-

DURING THE past three years JURIS has been a vehicle to those law students and attorneys who have expressed views about topics of current interest to the legal community. The publication of these articles appears to have accomplished the purpose of reaching and informing the readers of JURIS as evidenced by the many favorable responses received. This year the board of Editors plans to continue this policy and hope to create an atmosphere of informity among readers in many areas of interest.

In this Issue we have published two feature articles. one on gun control and the other on the requirements for admission to the Pennsylvania Bar. By printing these articles and others throughout the year, we hope to inform and add to the knowledge and understanding of the readers of JURIS with respect to these controversial areas. We welcome response to any of the articles

DEAN'S CORNER Duquesne University Law School At A Crossroads

published~

With a circulation of over 3000 attorneys and judges throughout Pennsylvania and neighbortng states, I believe that JURIS can establish an avenue of communication extending throughout the legal community. Any response should be directed to Editor, JURIS Newsmagazine.

The 19'70-71 school year will be most sigD1flca.nf to Duquesne's Law School, perbaps eve n more slgnitl.cant then the decision in the mid-1950's to establish a Day School. For in 19'70-19'71 DlQuesne, as a law school, stands at a crossroads. The question which the law school faces is DOt whether or not it will remain In busineSS, but how it will stay in business. There exists in some quarters in the Administration the feeling that we of the law school do oot eonsider ourselves a IlU't of the Duquesne Famny, that we would like to secede from the Untversity and go our own way. Because of this, some individual administrators bave made it their business to see to it that the Jaw sehool gets its eome-uppance.

Much bas hap&:ened over the past year to bring about this er1s1s. Questions of who eontrols law scbool expenditures, questions of who determ1nes law school poliey, questions as to who determines wbat the law school needs and questions as to who determines the law school's relationShips with other law schoois in the Commonwealth and in the Nation, The most recent incident, of whicb JOU are tully aware, is a decision ot the Board otTrustees mandating a tuition Increase, thereby for all practical purposes (in terms of Duquesne's market) giving Duquesue the highest tuition in the Commonwealth. This decision effectively makes an educational decision as to which law school to attend a financial decision on the part of the student. It is parUeularly galling that this increase should occur wben, in fact, the law school's budget doesn't begin to approach Its tuition income.

True eoough, there Is a financial crisis at Duquesne University, but this crisis was not of the law school's making. We have informed the President that we recogDize our responsib1l1ty to the University and

Duquesne University law School Newsmagazine

Juris 600 Forbes Avenue,

Pittsburgh. Pa. 15219

JURIS fa • publlc.Uon of the Duq..... ane Unlyenit,. School of L.w.

EDITOR-IN-CHIRP

ROBERT S. JOSEPH ASSOCIATE EDITOR

BUSINBSS MANAGER

WILLIAM A. DESTEFANO

FRANK A. COLLINS

FBATURE EDITOR

NEWS EDITOR

JOHN M. RIDLON

STANLEY A. UHR

CIRCULATION

ALUMNI EDITOR

MAN~GRR

THOMAS N. SILVERMAN

STEPHEN J. MARCINCIN GRAPHIC ARTS EDITO'R

CORRE8PONDIN6 EDITOR.

RICHARD D. BALLOU

FREDERICKa. GIEG, JR.

ADVERTISIN~

webave every intentionoftultllllngthisresponsfb11ity.

However, we do not intend to allow the law sebool's tuition tneome to be used to prevent senior administrators of the Unlversltytrom maldng bard educational decisions as to wbat Du;J,uesne University can and cannot atford. We bave been Informed by the President and by the Academie Vice-President that the. University Intends to see to it that the law school is treated fairly. We accept them at their word, but· we state publIely we bave already stated privately. - that the law school cannot cont:lmle to

MANAGER

JOEL M. BREITSTEIN

.t

Staff Mamlll."

Larry Wieder, Day~d Haller, Charles Wltaconls, Michael J. Bart, Charles Fonzone, Joel Fischette, and Patricia Pereili.

Adrilort:

JOHNJ.SCIULLO and NICHOLAS.J. DEMAS

operate In its present faclllt1es.. at its present

C ..... poIIdeace ... .,. be " ' ' ' .. eed to JURIS. 8abool of L ......

500 Forbe. A..._ e Pltteb\ll1(b. Pen....,.l...

15219

enrollment, UDder the present allocation ofreSOtU'ees.

We are ata crossroads. We Intend to IIlO'99 forward, hopefUlly with the Unt~rslty's support and encouracement.

_l.

1'elephon8' 434-6305

-Dean Ronald R. Davenport

THE ;.

(If to the stu and the one of the

interested felt that a law

law, through la primary with an

II

participate voluntary I After Ia Pittsburgh. and serve, to practi( Westmorel timE' to th! law for tw€ From 1: an Assista

:::Xovernor ( out of Ha deal of aPI and Suprerr with the Pu

rate hearir decisions r At that t commissiOl Professor

court in the Print1kl at REWS COMPo P.O.Bu 471, lIolll'O<tVUla. Pill. 15146

JURIS

In 1959 General's (

October. ,1970

Faculty Profile

By STANLEY UHR

\Villianl A. Bonahe.·

l'

HE ADDITION of William A. Danaher to the faculty of Duquesne University School of Law brings to the students a man of great experience in teaching and the law. His presence helps make our faculty one of the finest in the country.

Professor Danaher is originally from the Pittsburgh area. He was born and educated through high school in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. He received an A.B. Degree' in English Literature at Catholic UniverSity in Washington, D.C. At the time he graduated from college, Professor Donaher was interested in finance and money markets and he felt that a good preparation for this field would be a law degree. So with no intention of ever practicing law, Professor Danaher entered Harvard. As he went through law school his interest in the law became primary and in 1952 Professor Donaher graduated with an L.L.B. At Harvard Professor Donaher participated in the Moot Court Program which was a voluntary program.

After law school Professor Donaher returned tc Pittsburgh. He passed the Pennsylvania Bar Exam and served a six month clerkship. Then he began to practice law in New Kensington and in the Westmoreland County seat at Greensburg. From that time to the present Professor Danaher has practiced law for twelve years.

From 1955 to 1959 Professor Donaher served as an Assistant Attorney General of Pennsylvania under :::Sovernor George Leader's Administration. Working out of Harrisburg Professor Danaher did a good deal of appellate work appearing before the Superior and Supreme Courts. Some of his work was connected with the Public Utility CommiSSion, where he attended rate hearings and defended the state as appellee in decisions reached by the commission on rate cases.

At that time appeal from the decisions of the commission were directly to the Superior Court.

Professor Donaher prepared briefs and appeared in court in those appeals.

In 1959 Professor Donaher left the Attorney General's office. He didn't want to be a politician-

he wanted to be a lawyer. Of his experience as Assistant Attorney General, Professor Danaher says, "A young lawyer could develop his talent at a faster rate in the Attorney General's office than in a law firm.- He added that, ~the Attorney General's office gives more responsibility at that stage of young lawyers' development than a law firm.- After leaving government service Professor Danaher returned to a general practice of law.

Professor Donaher eased into teaching just as he eased into the field of law. He found that in the general practice of law he was doing many things ancillary to the practice of law from bookkeeping to "'holding a client's hand- and when actually practicing law the work became repetitious and not challenging.

So Professor Danaher began to teach at St. Vincent College at Latrobe on a part time basis. He was on St. Vincent's faculty from 1959 to 1966 teaching Constitutional Law, Business Law, T a x a t ion, Corporate Finance and a Seminar in Concepts of Liberty. The longer he taught the more he liked teaching and working with the law in this way.

And in 1966 he applied through the Association of American Law Schools Registrar and through them joined the faculty on a full time basis at Creighton University Law School. He was admitted to the Nebraska Bar but he never practiced there.

He remained at Creighton until this year .At Creighton he taught Trusts and Wills, Securities Regulation, Legislation, Restitution, International Law and Mortgages. During his five years at Creighton he became very involved in student interest programs.

He was the first faculty advisor to their Law Review and he initiated a new, vastly expanded Moot Court Program.

Here at Duquesne, Professor Danaher will teach Remedies and Damages and Corporations.

Professor Danaher, in coming to Duquesne, sees a great difference in the two schools. Creighton was a smaller, day class only, law school. There were 265 total students with one half in the first year class. Their admissions policy was a· relatively

JURIS

October, 1970

open one- which resulted in -a high Professor Danaher believes that law have a selectivity system. • Certain selective standards must be adopted and awlied or ultimately a disservice is done to entering students. Tbe danger is that someone may be kept out who could make it. This is unfortunate but the balance saves a many a night people unnecessary miSery,- As to school, Professor Danaher is in favor a night school program when it 1s run as it is here at Duquesne. That is, "when the night school is in conjunction with a day school program since one strengthens the other and when requirements for graduation are identical (sam.El exams, same professors, same grading system)."

On some issues which most concern the students, Professor Danaher comments:

PROBA TION: • Probation system sbould be kept so long as it is not unduly extended. At the end of his first year a student assumes the risk. The student must realiz.e his position and decide whether to go on or not."

GRADING: ~ As admissions standards are raised the grading system cbanges. There is always, to some extent, curve grading. Basically there is some answer in the professor's mind below which an answer is unacceptable. With higher admissions standards there are less poor grades (less curve grading)."

LOCK BOX NUMBER SYSTEM: "The most attractive aspect of law school grading is anonymity. Tbe number system is a safety measure to the professor.

The use of a lock box is not a question of trust; it is a procedure which is most consistent with the number system that is the best procedure."

Having Professor Danaher at Duquesne on a full time basis is an asset to the law school. Professor Donaher intends to do no outside practicing and will devote his full time to the school and Its students.

We welcome Professor Danaher to the Duquesne University Law SCh901 family.

Pa,. Four T

GUN CONTROL

Who Will Guard

The Guardians?

HE RIGHT TO KEEP and bear arms is a sensitive topic .In America. today. People on both sides of this contraversy are aWlrOacblng extremes and lad feelingS are developing between different segments of our society. People from rural areas have a higher regard for the right of the Individual to bear arms than the man in the city. This difference of opinion is malnly based on the fact that the rural element of our society is more diSposed to the sport of hunting. The farmer sees the firearm as a tool that will pro teet crops and livestock from scavengers. In urban areas the firearm is looked upon by the majority as a weapon of violence and destruction. Few people In urban areas think upon guns as a sport or a hobby because of land restrictions in clties. Residential and commercial buildings are more productive than target and skeet ranges where people may learn to compete with each other and develope skill in handUng a firearm.

Hunting has been called the sport of kings. In the USSR.. it is the sport of commissars since it is next to impossible to own a firearm unless you are a party member.1 The United States is unusual because as a free sooiety there are no restrictions on firearms ownship other tban for felons, habitual drunkards or usuers of narcotics. In America hunting is the sport of everyone. Everyone also bas the opportunity of participating in other shooting events such as skeet. trap, pistol and rine target shooting.

The greatest problem in establishing a right to keep and bear arms lies within the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which says: -A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The order and meaning of the words are difficult to interprete, especially by those who do not desire to understand the meaning of the words.

MILITIA is the worst offender because some people say that no one knows what the mmtia is.

However I militia is defined nicely in title 10 USCA. Section 311: (a) the militia of the United States consists of all able bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration to become, citIzens of the United states and female citizens of the United states who are commissioned officers of the National Guard. (b) the classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

•

hi.

people from aDd bearq arms. SO as to deprive· the .tJrdted states of there rightful resoarce for matatafnlnc tbe public seeurity. and disable the people from performing their duty to the ~DeraI tovernment.

Now that -mUltia" is properly defined, we must dig deeper into HIe meaning beblnd the second amendment. The passage .. • • • being necessary to the security of a free state, • .." bas a novel meaning when taken with other great documents of the United states from the time of the revolution.

The composers of the American Constitution and the origlnal Bill of Rights were mneh closer to the Dec laration of Independence than the people are today.

They were only about twenty years away from it whereas now we are almost two hundred. In fact. some people today, in reading the Declaration of Independence for the first time have labeled It as "subversive" or a -Communist Manefesto." I am sure that this document indeed was subversive to King George, but I cannot see how something that contains tbe greatest concepts of freedom can be subversiVe in a free state. The words of the declaration themselves caution men from making hasty chaoges in government: Prudence, indeed. will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for I1gbt and transient canses; and accordingly aU experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed, But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuiog invariably the same objective evinces a deSign to reduce them to absolute despotism, it is theIr rigbt, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their security.

This is, indeed, stroog language. What were the "new guards" the founding fathers provided for their security? I submit that the B111 of Rights contains all the guards necessary. Security of a free state does not imply the security of tbe United States as such. If the composers of tbe Bm of Rights meant the United states they would have said so.

The -free state" is that society c.omposed of the American people, not \\<it.hstanding the Federal Government. The security of a free state implies internal security as well as external security. Wbat would happen to America if a prominent general crOSSeS the Rubicon? I submit that there would no longer be a free state, although there would still be a United States (would it stm be free). The militia is a deterent to such a move. This is why a weil regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The fOllnding fathers showed a lot of horse sense when they incorporated the Bill of Rights into the Constitution of the United States.

Today there is a movement to change it.

THE FORGOTTEN AMENDMENT The right of the people to keep and bear arms is older than the second amendment. People in America would have had this right even if the second amendment were never written. The ninth amendment to the constitution is a catch-all rigbt given to the people which says:

By STEVE MARCINCIN

The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Third Year Day

This tells us that the American people have rights which are protected by the constitution even though they are not spelled out as such. These rights are those which are common to the people and need no enumeration. The most modern application of the ninth amendment is the «right to breathe clean air" that is bt>ing proposed by various anti-pollution groups.

In PRESSER Vs. ILLINOIS, 16 US 253 (1886), The Supreme Court of the United States held that:

It is undoubtably true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot. even laying the constitutional prOVisions in question out of view, prohibit the

JURIS

October. 1 Q70

From the moment the pilgrims stepped on the shores of what would later be called the United States, the American has had the right to keep and bear arms for the use of the protection of his property, his person and for use in sport and hunting.

It may well be said that America now has a system of police to protect the person and property of the individual, yet people are afraid to walk the streets at night and answer their door bells. Whv has the crime rate risen so high? <

Pap Fi".

Fortunately America is no longer the frontier and wilderness that it was two hundred years ago. is no longer necessary to go about arme<! to protect yourself from attack by wild animals or people.

Certainly the second amendment should not be construed to allow anyone who wishes to carry a weapon. A modern society would be difficult to maintain if everyone strapped a .45 on his hip as in the days of the 路old west.- This could well be madness, and is not the subject of this article. Just because this is not the case anymore does not give the government, or specifically, some of the people in the government the power to take away the right to keep firearms in your own home or to use them for legitimate reasons. Among these legitimate reasons necessarily is the right to protect your home and family. Unfortunately, even in a society as sophisticated as ours, there are daily occurances of intruders entering private dwellings and killing whole families. The right of self-protection is so sacred that no one can even suggest that it be denied. This is an excellent example of a ninth amendment right and as such, the constitutionality of any infringement would be in great doubt.

n

In the role firearms have played in the history of the United states, there is little room for doubt that, excluding the second amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is protected by the ninth amendment. If not, then no American can even lift a stick in his own defense. It could then be legitimately said that the American has no right to protect himself or his loved ones from bodily harm or death, that he has no right to maintain a family or own property, or he has no right to breath clean air or drink clean water. Without the ninth amendment there would be no right, except those specified word by word in the constitution. that would be free from government control.

We have talked about the right to keep and bear arms as a right that cannot constitutionally be infringed by the Federal Government. Since much of the Bill of Rights, through the fourteenth amendment, now applies to the states as well, there is no reason that the second amendment and the ninth amendment do not also apply to the state governments. In fact, 34 states refer directly to the right of the people to keep and bear arms in their own constitutions.

violators of the gun laws to the tuUest extent. Tbe same people that wisb to' put controls on 1eg1t1mate owners must keep order in their own house first, only alter this should they determine Wbat other constitutional steps, if any, must be taken.

Presently, when a person buys a firearm from a dealer he must identify himself by proper means and fill out forms that are kept by the dealers, subject to inspection by the Internal Revenue Service. These forms contain the name, address of the purchaser, and a discription and serial number of the weapon.

In many states, including Pennsylvania, there is a separate state procedure for purchasing handguns.

Pennsylvania requires a waiting period of 48 hours in wbich the state police, local police department of the purchaser, and his county sheriff are notified of the intent to purchase. If after this period of time there is no objection, the dealer sells the handgun and again sends a notification of the sale to the above mentioned sources. Short of confiscation, tbere is no reason to impIiment new registration procedures as this has proved quite effective in recording handgun ownership in Pennsylvania. Tbe same registration procedure is required on private sales of handguns, and in this case the parties to the transaction must go to a dealer and go through the same procedure. The dealer maintains possession of the pistol unt11 the waiting period has ended.

Of course, using this method, registrattononlyoccurs when the handgun changes ownership.

The commonwealth and municipllities involved bear the cost of administering this registration, and the purchaser piyS the cost of special delivery letters to the local, county and state police. The dealer charges a dollar or two when he handles a private sale in which he makes no profit. This is a sound way of registering handguns and its only fault is that there is no way to register the pistols owned by criminals. According to recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States, any requirement of registration for a person who intends to use the handgun for an unlawful purpose would probably be a violation of that person's fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. Again, the crackdown on gun ownership must be on illegal owners, not legitimate ones.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS - There can be no doubt that there must be a certain amount of control over the possession of firearms. This control, however, must not infringe on the right of the American citizen to keep and bear arms for lawful reasons.

Gun control legislation on the National, State and local levels must be enforceable if it is to be effective. Enforceable legislation must be within the framework of the constitution; otherwise this nation cannot survive as one ofthe great republics of history.l Certain controls over guns have some merit on the National, State and local levels. It is necessary that people who are felons, habitual drunkards and narcotics addicts be prevented from possessing firearms. It may be necessary that is a firearm is found at the scene of a crime the owner can be identified. The problem encountered here is that few guns used for criminal purposes are purchased at the local gun store. They are either stolen by the user or someone else and fenced into the black market. At this time there is no problem for a man who knows the right people to get a gun that cannot be traced. Of course the theft of a firearm and the consequent sale or use thereof is against the law.

These avenues for obtaining firearms by people who use them for illegal purposes must be closed up. This requires enforcement of the laws that are presently on the books, against the criminal, not the legitimate owner who uses a firearm for proper purposes. The Federal Government must institute tighter security around it's own stores of weapons because it is becoming the largest supplier for the black market's stores. Of course the weapons stolen from the government are much more sophisticated than those kept by individuals for hunting or target shooting. The courts must begin to prosecute the

By these processes there are records available to local authorities as well as federal authorities on most legitimately owned guns. This is not an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, it is only common sense. However, some of the new proposals include having the Federal Government require the registration of all firearms. This shows no common sense at all because it would involve a similar process as used in Pennsylvania and applied to all firearms. Presently, with the system of recording required by dealers, there is little expense to anyone and only time is consumed by the dealer in recordation. This accomplishes as much as is intended by the new proposals and does it at a cost that is phenomenally low, especially in terms of what the Federal Government spends on other things.

Presently there are roughly 50,000,000 owners of firearms in the United States. A very conservative estimate places about 200,000,000 privately owned guns in the hands of Americans. There is a great

(1) Shawver, GUN CONTROL AND TilE CONSTITtrrlON, Gun Week, March 13, 1970, at 7 cot I,

JURIS

October. 1970

amount of dUftculty in determining the actual cost per gun that registration would require. Using New York City as an eumple, the total cost per bandgu.n registered in 196'1 was $'12.8'1 for each application. Z Even U the cost can be brought down to $10.00 per gun, registration In the United States would cost about 2 billion. doUars. Considering that this' would not clear up the number of guns stolen, or guns whicb will not be registered because of the ftfth amendment privUedge against self-incrimination, all the Z billion dollars would accompIlsh is determine who owns what gun legitimately. This, in effect, is being done right now by the states and the recording required under the 1968 gun law.

Given the above, there is still the problem of firearms bought before 1968. Most are rifles and shotguns since states have registered handguns for some time now. Is it worth Z bill10n dollars to find out where these firearms are? Less than 2 billion dollars are spent yearly on state, national and local administration of criminal justice. Alan S. Krug, the Asst. Director of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, was in 1966 a member of the research staff a t Penn State. He ran an analysis of crime and firearms for that year. There were, in 1966. 3,243,3'70 serious crimes committed in the United states.

Rifles and shotguns were used in less than one half of one per-cent (0.005). Firearms of all types were envolved in 3.4%ofallseriouscrime.Infact. excluding traffic offenses, there were 31 million crimes of aU types in 1966, and firearms were used in 0.0035 of all crime. What this means is that if all firearms can be eliminated from the United states, granted an impossibility, and no criminal substituted any type of weapon, the United States would stm have 96.6% of its serious crime and 99.6% of aU crime. II all rifles and shotguns were eliminated from society, and again nothing was substituted in their place, the United states would have 99.5% of its serious crime and at least 99.9% of all crime.

Under existing procedures, at least in Pennsylvania, aU pistols must be registered, and because of the Internal Revenue procedure of recording, most guns tbat are sold are recorded. The process will eventually lead to recording of most firearms In the cheapest method possible and wUl accomplish, and is indeed accomplishing, as mucb as the new proposals that will cost at least 2 billion dollars. In Lieu of the fact that rifles and shotguns account for 0.005 of all serious crime the result is not worth it, especially when viewed in light of the fact that controls will not take into account the firearms owned illegally or owned for an illegal purpose.

THE GAMES PEOPLE PLAY - The strongest argument for stricter control of firearms, regardless of the constitutionality involved, comes out of the rising crime rate in America today. It has been said by prominent men that strict control of firearms would decrease crime and save lives. This is not so in New York City where tbe Sullivan Act of 1911 requires a license to own a handgun whether it is kept at home or carried for legitimate purposes.

In 1967 there were 19,206 licenses issued, 2000 to people using handguns for target shooting and hunting, the rest to people using handguns in their occupation. Between 1940 and 1966, despite license requirements, murders in New York City increased 240%. Handgun murders in tbe city for the first five months of 1968 were 50% higher than the national average.

Many proponents, in arguing for strong gun control measures, use statistics that are doubtful at best.

The New York Times, in the modern role of the old "ye How press," on July 17, 1968 wrote that three northeastern states; New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, which have strong gun laws, have a lower homicide rate (35%) than three southern states; Mississippi, Texas and Florida, which have weak gun laws and a homicide rate of 68%. They overlook their own back yard. The Boro of Manhattan, an - continued on Page 14 (2) A CRITICAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED HANDGUN I.D. CARD ORDINANCE - PREPARED FOR THE CITY COMMiSSION OF DAYTO:-l, OHIO BY TilE CITIZENS COMMITTJ;:E FOR SENSIBLE FIREARMS LEGISLATION, Sect. B: SlIwlemenl n. P. 2.

ABA Convention - St. Louis

By DIANE FABER Duquesne's Student Bar Association budget each year appropriates a speciftc fund to finance the attendance of law school representatives at the annual meeting of the Law Student Division (LSD) of the American Bar Association. This year the ABA and LSD meetings were held in St. Louis from August 6th to 13th; Bart Baier, William Costopolous, Dianne Faber and Laura Hortonattended the meeting as Duquesne's representatives.

LSD is organized by Circuits corresponding to the federal court circuits. By the second day of the meeting the Third Circuit (which includes Duquesne) discovered that the leadersbip and control of the Division was predominately in the western and southern law schools. In order to encourage greater particpation in the. Division oy the eastern schools, the Third Circuit decided to run a candidate for national office.

Consequently Miss Horton, a second year evening Duquesne student, was nominated for the position of treasurer. The Second Circuit nominated a candidate for secretary for substantially the same reason.

Although neither candidate was successful, the two days spent in campaigning by the first, second and third circuits produced a new awareness of the need for concerted activity among the eastern law schools and made the remainder of the Division take notice of the eastern schools interest in working constructively for and within the Division.

As a direct consequence of Duquesne's active participation in the S1. Louis meeting, Miss Horton is now the LSD Third Circuit Vice President. As Third Circuit VP Miss Horton is responsible for co-ordinating the LSD and related SBA activities of the law schools in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware. She will also share the responsibility with the Second CIrcuit VP tor next summer's annual meeting in New York.

Both on and off university and college campuses the major topic of discussionis student dissatisfaction with American society and government. Whether student involvement in. a given instance produces constructive change or senseless violence and destruction, it is an indication of the real coneern todayts student has for improving the world in Which he Uves. As students of the law and future practitioners of the law we are automatically involved in the controversy created by student demands for change because our legal training is directed toward understanding and using the channels created by our society for effectuating orderly and constructive change.

The Law Student Division is the only national organization of law students, and its activites are geared toward making law schoolS and law students active participants in the community and in the legal profession. From its beginning three years ago, tbe Division's purpose has been a dual one: to provide a vehicle for voicing law student needs and opinions on a national level and for stimulating and implementing law school services to their students and communities on a local level.

Both the American Bar Association and its Law Student Division are involved and concerned with the significant problems facing the legal profession and American society today: such problems as penal reform, drug addiction, legal services for the indigent, minority dissent and student protest, the composition and authority of the Supreme Court, uniform state laws. fedel'al aid to legal education, model court rules for student practice, professional ethics. law

The problem of enlisting active membership in the DiviSion was the focal point of many workshops and campaign discussions at the St. Louis meeting.

During the two days of registration at Duquesne in September, Miss Horton and Duquesne's LSD Representative .began a campaign to gain student membership in the Division. As a result of the membership drive, over 44% of the law scbool student body are now melfiberS of the Law Student Division of the American Bar Association.

school minority recruitment programs, and citizen awareness of the individual's legal rights. ABA and LSD activities In these problem areas take several forms. ABA Section research and analysis in speeiftc areas of the law ser\>e to clarify the lE>gtU issues involved and recommended approaches to tbe problems. activities in the state and national legislatures are an attlamlpt to initiate and support legislation relevant to ABA and LSD concerns. Both ormurlzations work to create and support local programsto Implement the positions they espouse on a national level.

Not to be belittled is the value of an organization which serves as a means for bringing lawyers and law students from aU sections of the COUDtry into direct communieation. Already the activttystimulated by the St. Louis meeting has brought thE> Duquesne, and University of Pittsburgh SBA's to recognize tbat cooperation between the two schools offers a significant potential for the benefit of law students in Pittsburgh.

In its first three years the Division has made progress both within the ABA and as an individual organization in working toward its goals; yet it's progress is only a beginning, the layingofa foundation from wnich to~ build. The key to providing greater services to law schools, law students and the community, and to achieving a national voice which will be heard, lies in its ab1Uty to recruit members who wul use the resources of the Division. With one of our 'students a member of the LSD Board of Governors and serving as Third Circuit VP. Duquesne law students are in a position to take advantage of those resources.

A Complete Line oj Lepa', Blanks A Complptp Line oj Supplies for the Ltnr Student

The following analysis of LSD and its role as a DtiOna! organization at law students Is a combination oftbe ideas gleaned from th&.â&#x20AC;˘ St. Louis meeting ant 'the experience of the membership drive at Dl.\q1Nsne . . . -What do I get for my $3.00?- This is the typical 'response of a law student . when asked if he would Uke to join LSD. He wants to know what direct, immediate and tangible benefits the Division yields to each individUal member. The usual answer Is a listing of such things as the regular publications he wiU receive, the funding available for law school projects, ABA insurance and placement services, student representation in the ABA, and the benefit of interaction with other law schools and practicing attorneys. Such an answer is never adequate. It is an attempt to accommodate the law student's myopia, an attempt which falls far short of the goal- gaining interested and enlightened participation in the Law Student Division of the American Bar Association.

P. O.NAlY COMPANY

Law & Finance Building 425 Fourth A venue

JURIS

October, 1970

Pittsburgh. Pa. 15219 Phoneta: 261¡0366

211-5841

Pale SeYen

Bar Results

Grades Are A "Hassle"

THE following alumni have passed the Jul,.,1970 Pennsylvania Bar Exam from DuQuesne University.

Congratulations to Walter F. Baczkowskl. Irvin S. Bails, W. Peter Barnes, Gerard M. Bigley. John A. Bonacci, Dean Austin Bowman, Robert Carl Bretsnyder. David J. Brightbill, Richard Kenneth Champney. and Jack Lewis Cherltin.

By WILLIAM COSTOPOULOS

Anita M. Cohen. James S. Cur ti n, Basil M. DeGrazia, Jr., P, LoulsDeRose,m.JamesS.DUlman, and Harvey J. Eger.

TWICE A YEAR they go up. Twice a year they excite and reward, depress and hurt, evict, and certainly bafne. There seems to be no method to their madness; their purpose is unknown; their permanence is foreboding. There is limited correlation, if any, between grades and work, grades and motivation, between grades and class participation. Unfair advantages are gained by picking one elective over another. Approaching a professor for a grade is unethical, but sometimes it occurs. Student complaints are audible and consistent, sinister and malicious. Unfortunately, some have merit.

ECA USE GRADES do have a violent impact on students, this article has been written, But one thing must be made clear from the beginning, The object of this criticism is not the professors; it is not the administration, past or present; and it is not the students. These people are not at fault either individually or collectively. The object of this criticism is the -grading system.· The present law school grading. system is uncomplicated and impartial. A student receives a number, has its duplicate secured, puts it on his examination paper, takes the exam, and receives his grade. That's it. Because there is anonymity between the examiner and the examinee, objectivity is compelled, sycophants are frustrated, and any possible collusion or plea bargaining is limited.

But the present grading system does not serve the purpose of a grading system, and with increasing frequency, smacks .of unfairness, Some students, without work or unique talent, get grades and bargaining positions for employment; for others, grades are a frustrating and insulting experience, at least; the remainder are sent home to a new career, a little poorer and wiser and a lot more bitter. OUr problems and consequences are not unique. No grading system can possibly indicate which students are the most motivated, the hardest working, the most intellectual, or the best future lawyers. But if a grading system is to have any purpose or significance at all, it is submitted it must correlate ability and work with some degree of accuracy and fairness, It must indicate which students have potential or no potential, which are working or are not working, And it should barricade against any iactical maneuvers Which may be employed to circumvent its function. The following procedure is submitted, not as a panacea, but as a step towards a more fair and accurate grading system:

because of the figurative law of diminishing returns. Though one does not have to be an oral advocate to be a good lawyer, or an excellent lawyer, oral advocacy is a critical part of the legal profession, and as long as it conUnues to be so, it is the institution's responsibility to foster its development.

A controversial measure, and a heated one at that, would be to allow the examiner some discretion in raising, or lowering, a gIven grade one-half letter once the written examinations are graded. Under certain circumstances this may be fair and purposeful, but the demerits of such a measure are palpable.

The size of the classesprohibitunlversaldueprocessj the Inhibited in nature will be punished accordingly; pedantry will nourish; the sycophants will attack.

Professional discretion is prohibited because of these consequences. And furthermore, res pe c t and confidence in the facuIty and administration must be given maximum protection, must permit no compromise.

No grading system Is flawless because man is not infalUble. No grading system will silence student complaints. No grading system will do What it is ideally supposed to do. But measures must be endlessly discussed and taken to improve a grading system where improvement is possible. Then and only then will it have Significance and meaning within the ambits of fairness.

Patrick J. Kearney. Audrey Kathleen KeUy. KeUb .S. Kennedy, Thomas Kovalehiek. Donald E. Lewis, Clyde A. Ludovici, H. Robert MacNicbolas. and Albert F. Maler, Jr. Kenneth D. Martin, Frank M. McClellan. Gordon Bruce Mendelson, Richard Ian Miller. David J. Millstein, John Baird Montgomery. Martin James Moran, Lorraine Frances Mullen, and Dante R. Pellegrini.

Thomas M. Piccione, David Jeffrey Picker, E. Kears Pollock, AnthonyJ. Popeck, DanielJ. Ratellford, Michael J. Reilly, Charles Richard Reis, Charles J. Romito, Robert C. Rosen, and Barry Alan Roth.

Fred J. Sentner, George S. Shenk, Edward G. Shoemaker, Robert G. Simasek, JohnSugbrue. Russell H. Tobe. Frader1e Char!ton Trenor. II, John A. Tumolo.

Janet Nolan Valentine, and Matthew L. von Staudach.

Adrian Joseph Wasko, Theodore Henry Watts, Leon Warren Weidman, James Joseph West, Karl W. Weidt. m. James EdmuJ¥! White, Donetta Wypiskl.

Louis C. LaLumere, and Thomas A. McLaughlin.

Hard day in court?

Relax at

~Rank &

wallY's

Cocktails

to be taken under the number system. This compels objectivity.

1. Examinations must continue

2. The electives should be graded pass-fail.

Electives provide for detailed study in areas of interest; they afford an opportunity to investigate possible future careers; and they help broaden one's legal scope. They are not designed to pad averages or beat the system. A pass-fail will encourage the purposes of electives,

David L.Gilmore, Robert Warren Goehring, stanton James Goldman, Stephen 1. Goldring. Hugh Gerard Grady, Joseph A. Hopper, John Joseph Hovan, Alfred Jones, Jr., Frank W. Jones. and Edward J. Kabala.

/Jlte~,k,fzd .'.1Ultc1t • JJ~ 1ake-(Jui; $eIULice

3. Appellate moot court and trial moot court should be given more credit and a grade. Many students have an uncanny aptitude, or learned ability, in these areas that goes unrewarded.

Too many students refuse to pursue these field

Phone 261-34.1)7

JURIS

kitchen oper/ 7 a.m. to midnieht

1033 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219

October. 1970

Page Eight

Bar Admission Requireml INTRODUCTION The present rules and procedures for admission to the Pennsylvania Bar were all developed before the Supreme Court of Pennslllvania adopted the sllstem of statewide practice. This recent and fundamental change makes review now appropriate~ Such a review suggests that the objectives of the Admissions procedures can be better served by changing present requirements in certain aspects and modernizing others in Line with recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court. For these purposes we make the following proposals for change.

The Chara.cter And Fitness Investigation THE INVESTIGATION of character and fitness for admission to the Bar as now made by the County Boards of Law Examiners is unsatisfactory. The present method of screening entails offensive inquiry into constitutionally protected areas of belief and activity which are not relevant to fitness for the practice of law. At least in recent years some applicants have been harassed during interviews for their political and social beliefs and activities.(l) The initial problem in revising the character and fitness investigation is to define ,. character and fitness· for this purpose. The lack of any generally accepted understanding of the content of this phrase has led to the importation of personal and subjective standards by individual examiners, as evidenced by some of the questions' ask e d during personal interviews. We would propose that ·character" be defined so as to mean personal honesty and integrity and that "fitness· in this context be defined to mean past conduct which has not called into question the applicant's possession of "character" in the defined sense.(2) Of course, there is another aspect offitness not germane to the interviewing process, namely, possession of a legal education and those legal skills requisite to the practice of law. That "fitness" is presently determined by graduation from law school and passing the bar examination.

If the foregoing definitions of character and fitness are accepted, it becomes possible to outline an investigation procedure that is calculated to uncover matters pertinent to the defined terms, but which at the same time will not trespass into areas which are irrelevant, offensive or constitutionally protected.

In order to help establish a less offensive and arbitrary procedure, the character and fitness investigation should be modified as follows. The interview with the appUcant, his preceptors and sponsors as now employed, should be eliminated.

Although not requjred by the rules, many County Boards view it as mandatory. It should only be used when a registration questionnaire or information received from a sponsor reve!l.ls a matter l!lerit!ruz: further investigation. The registration questionnaire should be confined to questions which will reveal violations of fiduciary duties or trust; any disciplinary actions taken by schools, military service officials or employers, for dishonesty; arid criminal convictions. Such questions might include: Have you eve r been a defendant in a suit for conversion, commingling of funds, or the like?

Have you ever been subject to academic discipline for plagiarism or cheating? Were you less than honorably discharged from the military service? .. An appendb setting forth rulE'S to implempnt thp$e recommended rharnre<; is attarhed to this mf'mnrandum.

(1) Testimony is avaiJabll? that surh harassment manif~sts itsrif.in questions suc~ as; -HaY€' you partiCipated in sit-ins, )OV~-lns Of he-lOS reCf'nt.ly, or any other communist or leftist -Why do you want to prartH'E' paVE-fty law?"; • Arf'ntt you inoori?sted in money"· (part of a twpnty .. minute attack: on the appiic:ant' s profeSSional "00 you sleep with girls'· (culminating a long series of qll<'stlons the applicant's personal soria I behavior). Sponsors have been asked Questions such as "Does he h~ht with his wire?".

EDfTOR! following ",Uell with the pon communicatll which a", worthy of i Inter" st to the lega.! of JURIS are .. "I ...... , more prop"rly th.. , Pennsylvania Bar requirements than it bave not been admltu It shout.

The

Have you ever been charged with forgery, extortion, embezzlement or other criminal violations of trust, or a crime ~f violence? In addition, the applicant should be required to list his past employment, prior residences and schools attended.

Excluded from the questionnaire should be all questions pertaining to race, religion, political beliefs and activity. and family history including the failure in business or bankruptcy of an applicant's parent.

A business failure is not relevant to character or ethics. Bankruptcy is a process sanctioned by ~he law and carries no burden of immorality or gmlt.

Even if bankruptcy could reflect character traits, it would not shed light on those persons not directly involved.

The above and similar questions are complete enough to elicit all relevant information without using a general question such as "is there any other incident in your career having a bearing upon your character or fitness for' registration as a law student?" This type of question is of doubtful constitutionality. A similar question was struck down in New York in LAW STUDENTS CIVIL RIGHTS RES EAR C H COPNQIL. INQ. v. WADMOND. et aI, COMMITTEE, ON CHARACTER AND FITNE~ ~No interest of 'the state- is sufficiently compelling to require an applicant to engage in the soul-searching of his entire past life demanded by (sucll a question). -(3) If the applicant's initial questionnaire, together with information received from sponsors, raises no question about his fitness then he should be approved forthwith without any interview. If the questionnaire or other information received contains grounds for doubt about his fitness, then he may be called for a hearing as part of a further investigation by the State Board, or by a master appointed by the State Board.

The hearing should be conducted in such a manner as to fulfill the requirements of due process. The applicant should be permitted to present information to mitigate the negative inferences drawn by the Board. Therefore, he must have the right to a written statement from the Board of the precise area of doubt. The applicant must have the right to confront and cross examine witnesses and to have a record made of the hearing.(4) In sum, he should be afforded the same procedural rights as are afforded a member of the Bar facing censure or disbarment.

or

(2) Stah"f08nt of Lowf'H Milh:T, Chairman th~ Bar E:<.aminers in the Stat'? of C'alirornia and C'hairman~Elert of Tht' NaHonal (onfpTP,nN' of Bar Examiflf'TS at the ~aHonal Conff'ren('p of Bar Pr('siof'ots.

2(11970. ·Weo arf' .•• con(,(,fned with an applicant's t'ondud when it pprsons moral chararter such a.<; thf!ir as a lawyer; their ahiHty to honeostlv th~ prot(>('tiQn of tht' intprest of thpjr {'lll!nl~ and cont'ernrd with is that tvpe or moral ctiarad"'r that to ha!.:k posihNl as an aUorm:v nor arp WE' particularly inter!:stp\1 in th(' pnhh:-al or philr}sophkal attHudps (Jf st~dents.·· (~) {lpinIOn by rlfrmt 1\1 f 1£;1:" Frwo,11v, 2')9 F, Supp. 1 t i , 1')~!)).

Appeal 15 pendlO~ In the ['nilod Stat"' Supreme rC,lIrt, no S'. . 560 (I ~ to).

The Florida Boarrt of Bar EXaminers r('crntly dfllflt(ld a SImIlar Qupshon from its r~f.tistration qup.stionnaire as a rflsult of the' dedsion m Np"" York.

(4) Compare KAHn! APPE,l L, 436 Pa. 364 to ronfront ac.-.users beforl;' om" ('an be for admission to thr Bar. As \-1r. Sustirf' conrurrine; ('pinion \0 \\'11,1 NEB v. COMMITTEE ON 37;), F~ S. :lii. lOG (1363), "'Certainly lawyPrs and courts should be sf'nsUive of and have a sprcial ohligation to respe-rt the demands of dut' SCllWARF v. BOAIln Of BAn EXAMINEHS OF l'. S. 232, 238, 239, I L.Ed.20 SOl, 64 A.L.n. 2d Thf' ~f'W Jprs(l'v Hu) .. 1:25-3 provifi{'$ for a ~ a formal manneT.· a rir;ht to a prompt hearing -C'ondu(,!pd in private~compl~te vprhatim transcript ami a ('op~t of the hearuw: rommittBP's report and ('(In('11l510n5. An aggrjpved applirant may petition th£> Court (or rp.Hf'f. Thp Tf't'ommpndp,:, proredural proterUnos nr a h£>aringor cour~(' apply to any fartual rtetprmination whioh the State floanl or roun!, Board lS requi .. rt to rnak •.

the

JURIS

October, 1970

exp..

THE DR:\F1 James Bartholomew, Carl B, Feldba Marjorie G, Marinoff, Louis :'<l. Mark:

The above hearing should be held at the discretion of the Board in that it could approve an appHcant after weighing the negative information without a hearing. It must not reject him without a hearing.

A reJected applicant must have the right of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, At the hearing, as well as on appeal, Inquiry by the Board or the Court should be limited to that area in wbich a chooses to question was raised unless the present other information.(5) On the for rejection should be merely on a "substantial evidence· standard.

Any cbaracter investigation should be viewed ~ an initial step in maintaining and the ethIcal standards of members of the Bar. A m 0 r e conscientious enforcement of the Code of Ethics after admission would do much to improve the and image of tl'le profession.

It has come to our attention that the use of fingerprinting is being considered(6) as an addition to the character investigation, pre.sumably to check FBI files as well as local police reeoras. Such a procedure is totally unnecessary. By the time the Board has assembled college and law school letters of recommendation and the questionnaire information , it has sufficient information enable .to, it, if desired, to make inquiryoflocalpohce agenCies.

It is our understanding that the present practice does not include, as routine, a verification of the information requested by the current questionnaire.

Furthermore, fingerprints will not simplify the verification of information related to schools attended and past employment, the very areas most likely to be indicative of most applicants' character and fitness.

The information on file with the FBI is not limited to criminal activities. It includes, in some cases, notations about political and social activities which should not be considered by the Board or even made available to it. There has been no problem with finding felons or other undesirables in the past.

Use of fingerprinting for inquiry to the FBI would increase the chilling effect of character investigations where this effect already needs to be curtail€'d. In the absence of a clear showing of serious need for a rule permitting such a procedure, its use should be prohibited.

The Bar Examination The pUrpose of the Bar examination is to screen potential admittees to the Bar in order to assure a high standard of competence in the legal profession.

Bar exams originated when many law students read law in lieu of attending a formal law school. At that time, a comprehensive examination was more easily Ci) Of ('ourse infnrmation not pr.rvjously availabh? to thp Boarr1 or HIP \011rt waulrl always b€' atimissibll?

Its

- ANew Proposal

OMMeNT' been published in fURlS to provide " authors of article Ii lion and of current unity. The Editors or, that it may be I Members of the riticize admls sion Law Students who rsettee under those ted then, the vie wa in the following ose of the students

.lne.

;OMMITTEE oald K. Joseph, J\Uchael L. Levy.

Bradford Niebling, Jr.

justified as a means of assuring a minimum degree of uniform competence.

Today the vast majority of applicants to the Bar in Pennsylvania are college graduates and attend accredited law schools. During three years of law school they must pass frequent rigorous examinations.

For a graduate of an accredited law school a Bar exam is an unnecessary and redundant exercise.

Of course, maintaining the competence of the legal profession is essentialj however, the present examination fails to accomplish, this for a number of reasons. It tests only superficially an applicant's knowledge of substantive areas of the law and does not test adeqW!.!l:!lY his reasoning ability. The examinatlOii~ consists of twenty-four essay questions each to be answered in forty minutes during a two day period. Because of the wide range of subjects covered in the examination and the pressure of limited time, the applicant is forced ,to regurgitate rules and examples learned in preparation for the examination. Under these circumstances, careful legal analysis becomes impossible. Physical endurance and memorization, as opposed to understanding of legal principles and analysis, become vital.

The misdirected emphasis of the pre sen t examination is reinforced by the bar review schools that have arisen in response to the applicants' need for he lp in preparing for the examination. These schools teach lists of rules and question-answering techniques which have met with success in the past.

Little emphasis is placed upon understanding or analyzing the principles of law involved, The result is a quickly learned, quickly forgotten, superficial knowledge of areas of the law currently included in the Bar examination. These problems are to a great extent inherent in any examination process. They are intensified by the nature of the present examination.

An examination given at the threshold of a legal career is a questionable means of assuring continuing legal competence.. Serious consideration should ultimately be given to its abolition.

Until the exam is eliminated, changes should be instituted in order to make it as effective as possible.

The following outline should be used in preparing future Bar examinations: 1. The first session of the examination should consist of six forty minute questions similar to those appearing on the present examination, deaUng with basic areas of the law: constitutional law, contracts, torts, criminal law, property and civil procedure.

Total: 4 hours

Z. The second session olthe examination should consist of three one hour and twenty minute essay

questions dealing in depth with areas of the law of the examinee's chOOSing. The examinee would choose one question from Group A and two questions from Group B, or all three from Group B. Total: 4 hours Group A 1. Federal Income Tax 2. Federal Anti-Trust Law 3. Federal Securities Law 4. Labor Law Group B 1. Corporations 2. Estates and Trusts 3. Family Law 4. Land Use 5. Poverty Law 6. Sales and Commercial Transactions 7, Evidence B. Administrative Law 9. Conflicts 10. Criminal Law and Procedure

3. The third session of the examination should consist of one four hour question testing an examinee's ability to use statutory and case materials which would be presented to him during the examination. The examinee would be restricted to the use of the materials presented to him as a basis for discussing the problem.

Total: 4 hours These changes will reduce the importance of physical endurance and memory, will emphasize an examinee'S ability to understand and use legal principles, and will provide a more meaningful test of an examinee's basic legal skills.

The first type of question, similar to that used in the present examination, would be a short essay dealing with an area of substantive law of basic importance. The use of such short essay question.'> will ensure that applicants to the Bar will have a working knowledge of the rules of law which are fundamental to every type of practice.

The second type of question would be a longer essay deaUng with an area of substantive law of interest to the examinee. Questions involving federal law are included because it affects the practice of most Pennsylvania lawyers, These questions will serve to test in depth an examinee's ability to master particular areas of law.

The third type of question would be a problem to be answered by using only a packet of statutory, case and other source materials given to each examinee.

AU examinees would receive the same problem and packet of materials. Examinees would have to deal creatively with the materials in answering the problem presented. This question will test in depth an examinee's ability to do legal analysis and legal writing, The above suggestions correct some of the deficiencies of the present examination. The proposed examination will test an examinee's command of basic principles of law, his ability to master areas of law of a pu-ticular interest to him and his capacity for creative legal analysis and writing. By shortening the length of the examination and by deSigning a third

JURIS

October. 1970

seSSIOn for which tne examinee cannot study. the proposed examination will place less emphasis on physical stamina; by minimizing the premium upon memory, it win emphasize an examinee's understanding of legal principles and Ilis reasoning abilities.

Consistent with the above changes, the state bar association should assume the responsibility for establisbing and administering a bar review school preferably staffed by recognized law professors.

Such a school should be responsive to tile goal of assuring that new admittees to tbe Bar possess the basic practical legal skills as well as being properly prepared for the Bar examination.

Whlle we recommend certain immediate changes in the nature and content of the Bar we also recommend that a further tll~ content of the Bar in consultation with representatives of the law school faculties. That then be broadened consultative process into a study of and means of that the accreditation of law schools the procedures for whether a student bas acbieved the neceSSaI of his upon enable a ..,.~._ ••." sufficient examination. Given schools, one hundred the Bar examination it, sinee the Bar examination of the law school Put ""r'''1''"m, work at law school is of a Bar examination becomes mere sw·pH.LSage.

Admlnisirative Procedures fOJ AdmiSSion

To The Bar Certain requirements Pennsylvania Bar are in unnecessary fees.

for admiSSion to the burdensome and result

Under the current Rules of the and the Regulations issued thereunder an to the Bar is to as a law student during his first year of law school. At that is required to fill out a long application form information concerning all of his and academic background. He also required to designate a county in whicb he intends to practice, to name a preceptor and three citizen sponsors, and to pay a registration fee of After appl}ing, he must undergo an investigation the Board Law Examiners for the purpose of determining his fitness and qualifications and the fitness of his preceptor. Failure to make application at that time results in the assessment of a late registration fee of $30.

Registration should not be required the first year of law school. Such registration is premature.

Many law students today are unsure whether they will enter into the private practice oflaw, let alone whether they will practice in Pennsylvania. To require a student to designate a county in which he intends to practice and to name a preceptor and citizen sPlnsors seems unduly burdensome under these circumstances.

A law student may eventually decide not to practice in Pennsylvania. Such an eventuality results in the forfeiture of his $50 registration fee. It also results in unnecessary impositions upon his preceptor and citizen sponsors who filled out forms and appeared before County Board Examiners. He may eventually decide not to practice law in the named county for the named preceptor. Then he is required to file -continued

011

Page 1 a

Paae Ten

Bar Requirements additional forms and pay a $10 fee for cbangiDg his county and preceptor. This too results in unnecessary impositions upon those who have taken an active interest in prospective members of the Bar. Accordingly, requiredreg1stration as a law student should be eliminated. In its place students intending to take the Bar examination in July should be required to register for the exam by January 1 of the same year, This registration should serve the dual purpose of providing information about the appHcant's character and fitness, and indicating hls intent to take the examination. (See the later portion of this section for recommendations regarding preceptor and clerkship requirements).

The elimination of the requirement of registration during the first two years of law school will reduce many of the administrative costs of the present procedure and ought to result in reduced fees, Under current admission procedures, the following fees may be charged prior to admission to the Bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania:

Registration as a Law Student Application for Registration: state Board Fee • . . . • . . . • • $45.00 For remission to County Board .• 5.00 Total •• , . • • . • • • • . • . . , , •• $50.00 Late registration fee. . . • • . • . . . , . •• 30.00 Transfer of .registration from one county to another . • . • • • . • . • , . . . . . . . 10.00 Change of Preceptor (state Board). • • . • •• 5.00 Change of Preceptor Philadelphia (County Board) • . . • • • • . • • • . • . • . • . •. 10.00 Filing registration certificate with Supreme Co u r t Prothonotary (payable to Prothonotary) . • . • • • • • . • • • .

1.00 Prothonotary's certlflcate of registration (payable to Prothonotary) • '.' • • • • • • 1.00 Petitions relating to any discretionary matter or involving a suspension or waiver of any 10.00 rule, order, regulation or requirement.

Bar Exam1Dation Fees Application for First Bar Examination: state Board fee . • • • • . • . . • • $45.00 For remission to the County Board..

5.00 Total • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • . • • . $50.00 Late Bar examination fee .••• , • . . . •.

5.00 Addition fee for typing the examination.

10.00

Coort Fees Supreme Court . , • • • • • . . . • . , . . • Superior Court , •••• ' • • • • . • . • Philadelphia Common Pleas Court ••••• , Registration Philadelphia Common Pleas Prothonotary , • . • . • • • . , . • ••

$10.00 10.00 18.50 10.00

The total fees which an applicant might be required to pay from the time he registers as a law student until the time he ls finally admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the various inferior courts ranges from a minimum of $150.50 to a maximum of $232.50.

The costs in both time and money for admission to the Bar could be substantially reduced by: (1) postponement of required registration to the third year in law school; (2) a reduction of the required number of questionnaires to be submitted, .forms to be filed and signatures to be coUected;(7) and (3) a truly unified admission procedure which would eliminate the need for separate admissions to Supreme, Superior, and Common Pleas Courts.

The postponement of required registration until (6) PrOjlC)Sal to amend Rule 8 set forth by the Committee on Legal EdllCation and Bar AdmiS>tl<ut 0.1 tho Pennsylvania Bar ASSOCiation.

third year would reduce the number of applicants subject to the fees for late filing, cbanges of preceptors, counties, names and addresses.(8) The $50 cbarged for application for registration as a law student could then be reduced. to reflect the smaller amount of paperwork. Regfste~ in the third year would eliminate the need for filing a separate application to take the Bar exam.

A unlfled admission procedure ls used in other states.(!) Admission to an the courts of the Commonwealth should be a one-step procedure upon payment of a single fee. In considering the costs of admission and the need for keeping them at a minimum. it is important to remember the substantial costs an applicant has. already had to incur such as law school tuition and the $250 tuition for the Bar examination cram course,(10) which even the most conscientious and intelligent students feel is a prerequisite to passing the present examination.

The elimination of the interview by the County Board of the applicant, bls preceptor and sponsors, as suggested in Part I, 1s closely related to the spirit and effect of Supreme Court Rule 14 relating to state-wide practice. It also reflects a mucb greater geographical mob1Uty of individuals in our society than was present When the present county oriented system was established. Today many applicants to the Bar are from out of state or intend to practice in a county other than that in which they may be known. In view of the changes affecting today's appliCants and practice we suggest that tbe county boards be abolished. This abolition of the county boards is a natural consequence of Rule 14 and the factors mentioned above and in Part I of this memorandum.

In the place of the county boards the state Board should be empowered to appoint masters, where a hearing is desired because of an applicant's responses to the questionnaire. In addition to such masters, or In lieu of such temporary appointments, the state Board might appoint a small number of regional reviewers to do the preliminary screening of applicants' questionnaires and to make Inquiry, if desired, of applicants' past employers, schools and other references.

It Is recommended by the drafting committee, in concurrence with suggestions made by many other members of the Bar, that the three month clerkship and the requirement of preceptor be abolished. We, are aware that this subject has been under study from time to time, but the program is still largely one of form rather than substance. In addition, for the many applicants who begin their careers in the law as associates in a law firm or government agency, it is a meaningless program, New associates are, in the normal course of their introduction to the firm or agency and its practice, carefully supervised by partners and senior associates. For such persons the activity of a three month clerkship period is indistinguishable from the time fo llowing the clerkship except that after three months they may go into Court.

For the individual intending to enter practice as a sole practitioners, the clerkShip requirement means three months of working for a lawyer whose interest in the new attorney is usually minimal because the relationship is only temporary. The young lawyer is likely to spend three months doing the most menial of his preceptor's work with little guidance in one of the most Important areas the experience is intended to develop, that is, legal ethics.

The amendment to Rule 11 proposed by the Committee on Leg-al Education and Bar Admission recognizes some of the changes in the pattern of legal education in that the Committee r e com men d s permitting law students to fulfill the clerkship requirement at any time after completion of one year of law school. This suggestion reflects the now common practice among law students of working during one and sometimes two summers for a law firm, a government agency's legal department, a. defender association, or a legal department in a corporation.

In addition to this type of experience many law students are involved in projects such as defender association

(7) See reoently amended Rule 200 of the Philadelphia County COllrt which no longer requires the Signature of the 'P\llicant's law school dean or the sIgnature of the chairman of the County Board of Law Examin'lfs.

(9) Amon!! otht:'rs t Michigan, New York, Massachusetts» Virrrinla. New Jersey.

(8) Applicants who chose to register earlier could he required to file a supplement updating their Questionnaires.

(IO) See Part I, SlJPRA.

JURIS

programs, community legal services, bail profects, and representation of indtg&nt persons as now permitted by the DeW Supreme Court Rule Ut-3/4..

All of these. experiences are apt. to be as meanblgfttl or more meanlngful to the .1aw student in terms of practical experience and et!ileaI development than the. traditional three month clerkship. In view of this Wide variety of practical experience now available to law students, serious consideration should be given to either outright abolition of the clerkship requirement or a.t least II. broadening of the activities which Wil1 satisfy the reqmrement.

While the proposal made by the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Admission will alleviate the last problem, it appears to be a. balf-way step to the eventual elimination of the clerkShip and preceptor reqUirements. We reeommend that this step be taken now to remove this vestige of the old system of learning law by reading law in II. law office.

Appen4lx

Rules of tile Supreme Coon of PennSflvania RULE? State Board of Law Examiners This rule requires no c~.

RULES

Registration of Applicants to tile Bar Of tile :supreme Court A. Before adtnission to the Bar of this Court, an applicant shall register with tile State Board by presenting proof of his completion of eourse of law study at a law school approved by the State Board, (1) l! II. Bar examination Is given. as authorled

by Rule 10, an applicant shall register with tile state Board six months prior to taking the examination. Promptly after graduating from law school. and in no event less than one month prior to taking the Bar enmination. the applicant shall furnish the state Board with proof of graduation from law school.

(2) The state Board shall make adequate prOvisions for late registration by applicants.

(3) An applicant shall satisfy the State Board that he possesses the requisite fitness and general qualifications (other than scholastic).

B. The applicant for registration with the State Board shall file II. written application, in dupUcate. in the form and at the time prescribed by the State Board, setting forth the following information avoiding any reference to race, religion, political belief or family heritage or lack thereof:

(I) Name (2) Present Address (3) Home address if different from present address (4) Prior residences other than residences solely for tbe purpose of attending schoo!

(5) Academic background: (a) Law Schools attended (1)) Colleges attended (c) Preparatory or highsehools attended (6) Degrees received - when and where (7) Academic honors (8) Character: (a) Any proceedings hi .Which the applicant has been a defendent in a suit for converSion, commingling of funds, or the like. (b)Any academic diSCipline for plagiarism or cheating. (c) Type of discharge from themiUtary service, if any. (d) Any proceedings in Which thE! applicant has been charged with forgery, extortion; embezzlement, or other criminal violations of trust, or crimes of violence.

(9) A list of all meaningful prior employment.

C. At the time of filing his application for the the Bar examination, the applicant sball pay a .registration fee to the state Board in such a - c07lttRuei'1

October, 1970

Oft Paf1~

1.3 .

JURIS

October. 1970

P.A.D. Egan Chapter

Kappa

EltudantBar Column

Beta

T BE

Pi

by JAKE MYERS, president

T

HE DECADE of the 1960's bas had a profound impact on the traditional C01lC&ptions of administration and government in institutions of bigber learning throughout America. Perhaps it is yet too early to forecast the long range effects of what some might call a renaissance of due process in our educational institutions.

Many in positions of authority have been quick to respond to the searching, and an almost desperate reaching-out, by students for something the y themselves may find difficult of definition. Response has been both commendable and tragic. We have seen the leader on the one hand and the despot on the other. We have seen the courageous and the cowardly.

In the final analysis, those In authority who have had as their foremost objective, the best interests. of those they govern, have been quick to see the issue and meet that issue head on. We the students want nothing more than to come of age.

An awareness of the tremendous potential for student growth and development, and awareness olthe tremendous energy and talent that can be tapped should compel· us to place the procedural problems in their proper perspective and work together towards a common objective. For the law student, the need for involvement in the decision making process in a formalized manner is critical. In overwhelming proportions, members of our profession assume leadership responsibiUt1es in society. Yet th e opportunity to gain practical decision making experience has been virtually non-existent for most of us until after almost half of our lives have been expended. The issue is not one of faculty, nor for that matter student competence. Considerations of loss of authority or precedent should not carry much weight. We should focus on instttutionalresponstbility and procedural due process. In fact, all we are asking for is the addition of a new course to the law school curriculum. We want to participate in a leadership training program that carries with it the incidental but rewardingly Significant benefit of law school growth and developmenl

38th Btemdal Convention of Fbi AIpba

Deb was heldinNewOrleans,LmdsitmaonSeptember 2nd through the 5th. Egan Chapter was represented

by Its Justice, Wbo also served as District Marshal for

On September 2'7, 1970, the Gamma Iota Cbapter of K9.P18 Beta Pi, a legal sorority founded In 1908, was Installed at Duquesne. Four students and seven alumnae were initiated as charter members by Eileen KeDy, Grand Dean of the internatlomllegal sorority. and LorraiDe GotUb, Director of Province L Chapter omcers were elected and tnstaned: .Dean. Dianne Faber. tbird year day; Associate Dean, Laura Horton, second year evening; Chancellor, Janke Gambino. second year evening; Registrar. Attorney Vlrginia Harrington; Historian, Dean sally Mrvos; Marshall.

Carol Mitchell, second year evening.

The sorority provides a means for female lawyers and law students to meet and share the interests and problems peculiar to their position In the legal community. An organization such as Kappa helps In gaining recognition for the eontributions that woman lawyers make to the profession and in serving as a vehicle by which woman lawyers may more signiftcanUy participate in the community.

With tbe substantlalinerease in female enrollment In the law school this year, the relevance of an organization geared to what is still a minority contingent within the legal profeSSion bas grown proportionately.

Those of us who have been at Duquesne for a period of time sufficient to appreciate at least the superficial aspects of the decision making process by in large feel the atmosphere conducive to structural change. Without attempting to give reasons, let it suffice to say that in general the faculty and administration have been responsive to student suggestions, requests, and concerns. We do not seek a structural change because of a feeling of isolation or alienation, nor is it a thinly disguised power grab. For in fact, it is more often than not, difficult to discern any real dichotomy of viewpoint between the students as a group on the one hand and the faculty as a group on the other. Perhaps what we are really asking for is nothing more than a structural manifestation of an attitude we firmly believe to be unique among law schools in Pennsylvania. We wish to preserve for posterity relations that are here noW on an ad hoc basis.

District XIV (New Jersey. Pennsylvania, and West Virginia). That week was declared -Phi Alpba Delta Week'" by proclamattons of the Governor of Louisiana and the Ma}'Or of New Orleans. The couvention consisted of worksbopsonChapter Financing, RUShing.

Local and National Relations, Professional and Socfal Programing, and Alumni. Commtttees were formed to discuss every aspect of the Fraternity, from the Constitution to Service to the student to Publications.

It was a landmark convention in many respects.

PAD again scored a number of -firsts-: -The -first- professiOnal legal fraternity to admit women.

The -first- profeSSional legal fraternity to gain an international status with Chapters in Canada and Puerto Rieo.

In stelli to emphasize the professional aspects of the Fraternity, and de-empbaslze the fraternal aspects, the ·pledge program- was replaced by an -associate program- and the -black ban- was replaced by a 1/3 vote of the active members of each chapter.

The convention ended with the election of the officers of the Supreme Executive Board for the next two years. Alex Hotchkiss, a Federal District Court Jodge In Kansas was elected to the position of Supreme Justice.

This year, Egan Chapter plans to promote its professional program in aMitlon to contiouing those programs Which have proved successful in the past.

The First Year OrientationwasheldonSeptember 1st. Stanley A. UbI' served as Chairman and, througb his efforts., the program was explnded to include information con how to study in Law School and tbe use of Law School facilities, such as the Library.

As a result, this year's program even exceeded its success in prior years~ The Annual Book Exeba.oge unfortunately did not net the profit which it has in past years. This was due largely to the fact that our faculty, ever striving to keep abreast of the current law, changed several editions In the required courses. To this extent, PAD became a victim of the changing legal concepts.

If you're planninl\ to save, why not get serious about if) Saving now can mean so many good thing;;; in the future-a new car, new furniture, a child's college education. Even more, saving means security. At Parkvale, we take every custDm!;'r seriously. To prove it we pay a 5% dividend compounded semi-annually on all passbook savings. Want your savings account to be taken seriously? Then gel serious-save at Parkvale.

The Student Bar Association of Duquesne School of Law respectfully requests student vo ti n g participation on the following faculty committees: The Academic S tat u s Committee, The Curriculum Committee, The Library Committee. The Facilities Planning Committee, The Programs Committee, The Summer School Committee and The Committee for a Clinical Program. We wish also to express our extreme satisfaction with the Faculty-Student Rei a t ion s Committee as presently constituted.

503 Gr•• nll.ld A.enue. P,tl.ourgh 420 Grant Avenoe, Millvale

llli~mpeOn~ighW(aY'.MonloeV'lle

4205W. 102 Malts lane, Irwm 931 FIfth Avenue, New Ke'nSII'gton i 0:5 AtWOOd Street, Odkland

JURIS

October, 1970

Haf!w. Ie 3..

SAVINGS

N:~)[

Bar Requirements -cOlltJllud /r0WI Page 10

manner and amount as from time be fixed by the State Board.

to time shaH

D. No applicant shall be recommended by the state Board for admission to the Bar of this Court unless his application for the Bar examination bas been approved by the State Board.

CommeJlt Paragraphs D, E, and F have been deleted because of the elimination of preceptors (see Rule 9) and the County Boards. Paragraph G now appears essentially as Paragraph D. Paragraph H is no longer necessary since registration as a law student is no longer necessary.

RULE 9 Preceptors We recommend the deletion of Rule 9 inaccorda,!lce with our suggestions in Part ill of the attached memorandum.

Comment Essentially, the Preceptor System is entwined with the Clerkship System which we have recommended, pursuant to Rule 11, be abolished. Absent the clerkship requirement, a preceptor is no~ necessary. To the extent that a student can develop a line of communication with a member of the Bar, we encourage him to do so, but we do not intend to burden both law students and members of the Bar with a formal procedure for establishing what is primarily a friendly, fatherly or pedantic relationship. (See Rule 11 and comment thereto).

RULE 10 Bar Examination A. The state Board shall hold Bar examinations at such times and places and in such subjects as the state Board from time to time shall prescribe.

B. The State Board may adopt rules limiting the number of times an applicant may be examined for admission to the Bar of this Court.

Comment Although we recognize the necessity of this rule to implement even the Bar examination as it ought to be (see Part n of the attached memorandum), we wish to reemphasize here our belief that there ought to be no such examination at all. A willingness to properly evaluate and accredit law schools will go a long way towards accomplishing this goal.

Paragraphs C through G of Rule 10 have been deleted inasmuch as Rule 8 now covers the items of substantive value in these paragraphs. All references to the County Board in those paragraphs are no longer necessary since the County Boards will no longer exist.

RULE 11 Clerkship It is recommended that Rule 11 be eliminated.

Comment It is recommended by the drafting committee, in concurrence with suggestions made by many other members of the Bar that the three month clerkship and the requirement of a preceptor be abolished. We are aware that this subject has been under study from time to time, but the program is still largely one of form rather than substance. In addition, for the many applicants who begin their careers in the law as associates in a law firm or government agency, it is a meaningless program. New associates are, in the normal course of their introduction to the firm or agency and its practice, carefully supervised by partners and senior associates. For such persons the activity of a three month clerkship period is indistinguishable from the time following the clerkship except that after three months they may go into Court. For the individual intending to enter practice as a sale practitioner, the clerkship requirement means three months of working for a lawyer whose

Interest in the DeY attorney is usually mfnimll becaue the reJatiooship is only temporary. Tile young lawyer is likely to spend three montbs doing the路 most menial of his preceptor's work with little guidaDce In one of the most Important areas the experience is Intended to develop, that is. legal etbtcs.

The amendment to Rule 11 proposed by the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Admission recognizes some of the changes in the pattern of legal education In that the Committee recommends permitting law students to fulfill the clerkship requirement at any time after completion of one year of law school. This suggestion reflects the now common practice among law students of working during one and sometimes two summers for a law firm, a government agencyts legal department, a defender association, or a legal department in a corporation. In addition to this type of eXPerience many law students are Involved in projects such as defender association programs, community legal services, bail projects, and representationofindigent persons as now permitted by the new Supl\eme Court Rule 12-3/4. All of these experiences are aplto be as meanlngfnl or more meaningful to the law student in terms of practical experience and ethical development than the traditional three month clerkShip.

In view of this wide variety of practical experiences now available to law students, serious consideration should be given to either outright abolition of the clerkship requirement or at least a broadening of the activities which will satisfy the requirement.

While the proposal made by the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Admission will lllleviat& the last problem, it appears to be a half-way step to the eventual elimination of the clerkship and preceptor requirements. We recommend that this step be taken now to remove this vestige of the old system of learning law by reading law in a law office.

RULE 12 We recommend the deletion of Paragraph C in accordance with our recommendations under Rule 9.

RULE 13 Admission to the Bar of the Supreme Court A The State Board shall issue to an applicant its 'certificate recommending his admission to the Bar of this Court, provided that applicant shall have passed the Bar examination (unless a Bar examination is not required under these rules); shall have complied with the requirements of these rules; is at least twenty-one years of age" is a citizen of the United states; and has satisfied the State Board that he intends to maintain his principal office for the practice of law in this Commonwealth. An applicant shall not be denied admission solely on the ground that he will not be maintaining his principal office in Pennsylvania immediately up a n admission.

B. No person shall be admitted to the Bar of this Court except upon motion of a member of the Bar of this Court, in good standing, and submission of the certificate from the state Board dated within one year, recommending such admis~ion, but this Court may, in exceptional cases and for cause shown, admit to its Bar a duly certified applicant, even if the certificate is dated more than one year before the motion is made for the applicant's admission. However, when application for admission to the Bar is accompanied by a certificate more than one year old such application must also be accompanied by 'a statement of the State Board setting forth that it knows of no reason why the application should not be granted.

C. Motions for admission to the Bar shall be made on the morning of the second Monday of each regular session of the Court in both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and on the morning of the first Tuesday of each regular session of the Court in Harrisburg. Anyone who wishes to have a motion made for his admission at any other time must have a petition in his behalf presented by a member of the Bar of this Court,

JURIS

October. 1970

Wb1ch petition shall set forth satisfactory reaso... for tbe makingotthe motion for IdmissioDat other than the prescribed time. This rule does not apply to motions tor admission pro hac 'rice, wblch motions may be made at any appropriate time.

Cemmea& Rule 13 bas been amended to eliminate the requirement that applicants be actual residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. There appears to be no requirement that a member of the Supreme Court Bar continue to be a resident of Pennsylvania after admission and it seem illogical to require residence as a prerequisite for admission where there is a requirement that the individual maintain his principal office for the practice of law within the Commonwealth. The latter requirement should be sufficient for the courts to maintain supervision over members of the Bar. The last sentence in Rule 13 A has been added to overrule a heretofore unpublished and narrow construction by the State Board. Although neither the present rules nor the regulations promulgated thereunder so state, the state Board has followed a practice of refusing to issue their certificate of recommendation for admission unless the applicant intends to maintain his office in Pennsylvania immediately upon admission. To enforce this practice after the' applicant has met all other requirements including the Bar examination, they have required him to sign a form so stating. This ignores the realities that many persons whose natural state for admission to the Bar is Pennsylvania do not immediately commence practice in Pennsylvania. They may pursue graduate courses of study, they may teach or go into bUSiness, or into the armed forces, or th~y may take temporary legal employmentoutstde of Pennsylvania to gain further legal experience or training, e.g., employment with the Federal Government in Washington. The meaningful and legitimate question for Pennsylvania to ask is whether the applicant has a bona fied intent to become a Pennsylvania practitioner. The answer should depend on the applicant's general contacts with Pennsylvania and whether his history indicates that Pennsylvania, not some other jurisdiction, is the locale in which he intends to enter the private practice of law - not the narrow question whether as ofthe date of admission be will be practicing law in Pennsylvania.

A minor technical change was made in the case where the certificate of the State Board recommending the applicant's admission to the Bar of this Court is more than one year old. Subdivision B(l) of the present rule has been eliminated because this method is not recognized in practice.

The committee was informed that the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court advises applicants that only military service constitutes satisfactory reason for admission by petition. As one alternative to this limited construction of the rule, the committee considered recommending that admission by petition be as a matter of course. However, it was decided that the benefits of ceremonial presence at a term of court is justified as long as delay in admission can be avoided and that bringing to the attention of the Court the abuse of such a limited construction advised by the Prothonotary would eliminate it.

RULE 14 Comment to Present Rule 14 The drafting committee respectfully suggests that it would simplify matters for the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court and attorneys who have occasion to practice in several counties if, upon admission, the Supreme Court would add the name of the newly admitted lawyer to a statewide roll of attorneys to be kept on file in every county. This roll should be used in lieu of the Certificate of Good Standing now required. The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court would of course continue his present practice, outlined in the letter of December 1, 1967, from the Chief Justice to All Pennsylvania Judges, of notifying all local courts of suspensions and disbarments and related diSCiplinary actions.

- continued on Page 14

Page Founeen

GUN CONTROL - cofitfJI1l;ed

Bar Requirements continued

tram.

Page 13

RULE 15 Appeals A. An applicant for admission to the Bar shall be given notice by the State Board of any adverse decision. Within thirty (30) days of the date the state Board sends notice of said decision to the applicant, he may request a hearing.

Within thirty (30) days after the applicant's request, unless postponed by agreement with the applicant, the state Board shall hold a hearingby a committee or otherwise - at w h i c h the applicant and his counsel shall be present. The applicant and the state Board may subpoena and examine witnesses and offer such evidence as may be necessary for the State Board to make a final determination. At any hearing before the State Board, it shall present in tuiI the charges upon which it based its adverse decision and shall make available to the applicant and his counsel for inspection such portion of the applicant's record that does not constitute confidential information or work product of the Board that bears upon the issues before the Board.

A stenographic record shall be made of any hearing before the State Board. Whether hearings shall be opened to the public depends solely on the applicant's election. Thirty days after the completion of the hearing, the Board shall submit to the arolicant in writing a statement of its final decision and the reasons therefore.

B. With the exception of the decision of the State Board that an applicant has passed or failed a Bar examination, any order or ruling by the State Board may be reviewed by the Court of its own motion or may be the subject of appeal to this Court by the person aggrieved. Any person desiring to appeal an order or ruling of the state Board, shall, within thirty (30) days of the date the State Board sends notices of said order or ruling to such person. file with the Prothonotary and the State Board a notice of intention to appeal said order or ruling to this Court. Within fifteen days after service of the notice of appeal. the Board shall transmit to the Prothonotary its entire file on the applicant including the stenographic record of any hearing before the Board and a statement of the reasons for its decision if one is not already part of the record. A copy of such statement shall be served on appellant. Thereafter the Court shall set a schedule for briefs and/or oral argument as in its discretion the case demands.

page 5

errant ward of the Sullivan Act, had a homicide rate of 15.13 per 100,000, whereas Queens, a Boro under the same restrictive law, had a homicide rate of 3.26 per 100,000. 3

One wonders whether they wnI be satisfIed with handguns, or wiIl they require another scapegoat to calm the people's fear of rising crime.

On July 16, 1968 the Justice Department released a report called ÂŤFirearms Facts," which seems to have adopted the New York Times' tactics of relying on spotty statistics in their comparision of strong and weak gun laws. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, they report, have strong gun laws with a homicide rate of 3.1 per 100,000, Whereas Arizonia. Nevada, Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana have weak gun laws and, 10 and behold, have a homicide rate of a whopping 9.1 per 100,000. They forgot to point out that Iowa, North Dakota, Vermont, Washington and New Hampshire, with weak gun laws show a homicitie rate of 1.8 per 100,000.

No one in his right mind will hinder any legitimate method of easing crime in America, but from all that has been shown, there seems to be no correlation between gun ownership and crime. Crime is a socioeconomic condition; most crime ta.kes place the under-priviledged, and periods of hardship such as the depression have also been times of high crime rates, The billions of donars that might be wasted to what has been done, might better be spent in nation's poor acquire skills so that more productive and noT'h","", to duplicate that The money should should not be which is already used to infringe upon of American citizens as set forth in the

The use of selected statistics in arguing for strong sanctions against legitimate gun ownership can only help the person who lives outRide the law since, as was pointed out, the fifth amendment excuses them from registration requirements. so, crime is today. If

THE NEXT ~GREAT EXPEHIMENT" A major fear of many gunowners is that registration will be the first step to confiscation. This position is not unreasonable in light of certain facts. First. the proponents of the stricter measures that will go to Congress in the next year or ~wo believe that what they are doing is a step in the right direction. One wonders what the right direction is. Most of all, what is the next step'> Secondly, some gentlemen have proposed that all handguns be confiscated by the Federal Government because they are concealable.

The proposal is that the Federal Government pay a maximum of $25.00 per gun as a reimbursement.

I own several handguns and most cost four times the maximum these people are willing to give me, This Is a prime example of what an infringement is.

The black market compared to the black from America's next registration of firearms, serve no useful purpose, is confiscation, and it does succeed in It'gitimate gunowners, then the only people who will own guns will be the the and the criminal. WHO WILL THE Gt'ARDL~~srl AT

r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, I WHERE ARE YOU NOW?

I

Help keep our mailing list up to date.

I

I

NAME ................................................................................................... .

I

I

NEW ADDRESS............................................................................ .

I

no.

The State Board's marking of an applicant's Bar examination paper shall be final and shall not be subject to review.

street

city

I

state

zip

I

FIRM NAME............................................................................... _........ .

POSiTION ............................................................................................. .

C. Except as provided in Sections A and B of this rule, the actions and records of the State Board shall not be open to inspection by the public.

Comment Rule 15 has been altered to comport with the requirements of due process. A record hearing at Which witnesses may be called is made a matter of right. Before the appellant is forced to argue his grounds for appeal in a brief, the Board is required to provide him with its reasons for denial.

tram.

Names of other alumni who may not be on the mailing list.

street no. city state zip NAME__...__ ...........__._._..........__.._ .................. __....._ ..__

r

no.

street

city

L __ - __________

JURIS

October, 1970

state ~

__

zip ~

____

I ~_!

First Year Statistics CONTRARY to previous years, no student survey was taken -to obtain the statistical iDtormation on first year Law Students at Duquesne. The information was obtained directly tbrough the use of Interrogatories sent to the Law Scbool secretaries and attested to in the presence of Associate Dean lOss Sally

The

Mrvos.

JURIS Staff

As of September 3 the day division comprised

134 students, baillog from 58 different universities aDd colleges. Once again, Pennsylvania supplied the majority of first year students: Duquesne sent 18, University of Pittsburgh and Penn state each sent 11. and Dick1Dson. 5.

wishes to congratulate Ronald R. Davenport on

TIle mean LSA T score for the day division students Is 520. With a median of 518. The day class QPA average OD a 4.0 basis is 2.57, compared with last year·s 2.67 mean.

The eventog division bas a total of 132 students from 61 different undergraduate Institutions. Tbey too come primarily from Pennsylvania schools: 21 from the University of Pittsburgh, 19 from Duquesne, 12 from Penn state. and surprisingly enougbCarnegle Mellon and Indiana University are tied for fourth piaee with 4 representatives each.

The eventog students' LSA T mean is 541, bigber by 21 polnts than that of the day division students.

while the median is only 9 points higher at 527.

his appointment as

The mean and median QPA of the nlgbt divlston is the same as that of the day students, 2.57 and 2.50. Last year's Iligbt class averaged a Z.78 QPA. Tbe combined numbel' of incoming Law students equals 266. representiog 9'7 different oolleges, withan

average QPA of 2.57 and LSAT score of 530.

Dean

- JOEL FISCHETTE

of Duquesne University

-I an associate

School

..t a

SLmmer cle.rk

of

Ja

part time. clerk·

.Law.

.J a

research a$~i.tant

contact: . DU~5ne•. PlacementService Dean .JohnJ. Sciullo

JURIS

October, 1910

Page Sixteen

Alumni Record L '68 - David A. Hoffman • a 1965 graduate of the University of Pittsburgh, was a member of the Duquesne Law School Day Division Class of 1968.

by Thomas N. Silverman

L '64 - Ronald P. Koerner . . .. returned to his undergraduate alma mater Duquesne, to earn a Juris Doctor degree as a mamber of the Day Division Class of 1964. The former Article Editor of the 1963-4 Duquesne Law Review spent a brief tour of service with the Judge Advocate General Corps of the U.S. Army where he attained the rank of Captain.

He ~ld the<~sition... of @flief,· Tria~uns~ Qt>:r .tl1e·. ;;~ Military Justice Division at Forl Leonardwood Missouri up until the time of his discharge in Jan., 1968.

A native of Pittsburgh, Mr. Koerner then became associated with the local law firm of Gatz, Cohen and O'Brien, located in the Law and Finance Building.

Concerned with the general Civil practice of law, Mr. Koerner engages iil extensive trial work preferring Negligence and associated personal injury advocacy.

He is the father of two children and resides with his wife, Joyce, in the suburban Pleasant Hills section of Pittsburgh.

*

*

*

*

L '67-H. Arnold Ge(sky .... Following his graduation from the University of Pittsburgh, Mr. Gefsky earned his law degree at Duquesne University in 1967 as a member that year's Evening sion Class. During his school career he was finalist in both The late and Shalom Moot competitions.

After a brief association with the local law firm of Trooper, Goodman, and Schwartz, where he principally engaged in corporate business law and litigation, counselor Gefsky embarked upon truly a unique approach to the practice of law. Possessing a keenand genuine interest in all facets of corporate management, Mr. Gefsky lent his legal expertise to the formation, development and administration of various corporate ventures, prominent among which is ALL-PRO CHICKEN,tNC., a Pittsburgh-based fast-food chain. Having been instrumental in its inception and growth, he quickly rose to the position of executive viee president. In addition' to exercising senior management responsibility, Mt. Gefsky gained valuable insight into problems inherant in the planning, executive and finanCing of business enterprises in general.

L '68 - Charles Lehman. ·ear ned both his Baccalaureate and Juris Doctor Degrees from Duquesne University as a member of the 1955 and ,CI96& Classes res~tivel)!...' ..J - . c r ""'l A

Mr. Lehman was a Shalom Moot Court Finalist in 1967-8 and since entering private practice has continued to engage in extensive Trial work serving as an associate in the law firm of Hess, Hess, Pieree and Humphreys 10" . cated in the Lawyers Building, downtown Pittsburgh.

In addition to being an active member of the Pittsburgh Jaycees and the We s t ern Pennsylvania chapter of the American T ria 1 Lawyers Assocition, Mr. Lehman holds faculty status atthe Allegheny Community College where he teaches Business Law. He resides with his Wife Ritadale, and two children in the Scott Township section of the City of Pittsburgh.

Mr. Hoffman is presently employed by The Commercial Bank and Trust Company in the capacity of Assistant Trust Officer and Assistant Secretary to the Bank Director. He is also engaged In the private practice of law and Is associated witb H.I. Hoffman of the Grant Building, Pittsburgh, Pa. Although Mr. Hoffman's work at The Commercial Bank is primarily concerned with the Estates and Trusts aspects of the law, he shov.'S a continuing interest in aU phases of real estate practice.

Attorney Hoffman is actively involved With numerous Pittsburgh-based 0 r z aU 0 n s and hoI d s ~metnbersbffl In, the 4i.i~n~,ty~,Pennsyl!aDia., and American Bar ASSOC:latlOD:S.

*

*

*

*

L '67 - Michael Ford •. graduatsd from Villanova University in 1964 where he majored in Economics and was a member of the Duquesne Law School Day Division Class of 1957. He was admitted to practice in April, 1968 and is presently engaged in the general practice of law with offices in the Frick Building and Virginia Manor ShOpping Centers, Pittsburgh, Pa. As a sole practitioner. Mr. Ford considers his main interests to lie in the fields or personal injury and estates, which he believes to be dynamic areas of the law today.

He is a member of the Allegheny Connty.

Pennsylvania, and American Bar Associations asweU as being a panel member of the Allegheny County Mental Health and Retardation Center.

In addition to taking an active role in the operations of the 112th Air Defense Command of tbe Pennsylvania Air National Guard, attorney Ford is also a Republican County Committeeman representing the Scott Township section of Pittsburgh where he and his wife Jacqueline reside.

Juris

Duquesne University School of Law 600 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219

Hcn-I'rcfit Org.ninlicn

U_ S_ POSTAGE

PAID Pittsburgh, Pa. Permit No. 390

Functioning in a legal-entrepreneurial capacity Gefsky considers .his dual role to be an exciting one with many long range as well as immediate rewards.

Mr~

He resides with his wife Adrien in the Shadyside section of Pittsburgh. .

POSTAGE REQUIRED POR THIS MAILING MATTER