*1 Petitioners, et al., R. EDWARDS, INC., J. Judge, et al., District
R. L. HERT, Respondents. INC., & COMPANY, COCHRAN
MILBURN, Petitioners, et al., Judge, District SPELLMAN, H.
F. B. et al., Respondents. COMPANY, INC., & NICOLAUS
STIFEL, Petitioners, et al., Judge, et District al., PARR,
Jack R.
Respondents. and 43254.
Nos. of Oklahoma.
Nov. *2 City, Edwards,
homa petitioners, for R. J. Inc., and others. George Fagin, City, for Oklahoma J.
petitioners, Milburn, Co., Inc., Cochran & and others. Ramey, Yukon, petitioners,
Fenton R. for Stifel, Co., Inc., Nicolaus & and others. Vassar, Counsel, Paul M. Gen. Oklahoma Association, City, M. James Springer, Jr., Stillwater, respondents. BARNES, Justice: shall parties refer the char- they appeared acters in the courts instance, plaintiffs namely, first as defendants.
These cases originated the district Payne, Major courts of and Canadian Coun- petition ties. Each was initiated against respective defendants, municipal agents, bond and their marketers filed associations, county the individual bar to- gether Association, Oklahoma Bar enjoin practices certain of the defend- ants, alleged to the unlawful constitute these defendants who charges, were not of the bar. The members brief, corpora- were that the defendant tions, engaged who negotiating also, marketing, themselves, selling municipal types bond and other issues securities, connection, undertake, in authorities, give municipal legal advice to boards, representa- to school and to other contemplating of entities who tives borrowing money through the issuance of alleged corporate It also bonds. defendants, acting through agents, the their defendants, others, through individual resolutions, proclamations, prepare election contracts, transcripts proceedings of bond bonds, negotiable coupon all of which il- acts also are asserted constitute the legal practice of law the defendants. position that The defendants took the did not amount to the acts merely assisting in in that were prescribed by Attor- filling out forms Hirsh, directions, Leon S. Paul Johanning, ney David according to his General Hirsh, Hudson, Hudson, Johanning that, & prac- Okla- if could be considered law tion, grant specific tice, variety, any over non-forensic it was of the Constitution, any upon subject in this branch (it asserted) restriction, whatsoever, on shall not government jurisdiction, has no work limitation, Legislature theory that the alone or exclusion of such author- regard. ity any subject same or police Sub- wield V, subjects raised the sidiarily, the whatsoever.” Art. *3 defendants § that, event, respec- any the proposition (1907). in standing bar associations were without
tive Department As to the and its Judicial actions, that this asserting to maintain the functions, Constitution, particular Arti- ju- exclusive Court has retained for itself VII, adopted cle read: as regard. risdiction in that judicial power State shall “The of this proceeded matters to hear- Before these Senate, a sitting be vested in the as ing upon on merits issues raised Court, Supreme Dis- impeachment, of courts, filed with the district the defendants Courts, Courts, County of trict Courts applications prohibition us of for writs Courts, Peace, Municipal of the Justices respective judges whom district before courts, commissions or and such other pending, by the matters were which route Court, boards, Supreme as inferior sought prompt to achieve a reso- defendants by 1. be established law. § lution, favor, in their contentions appellate jurisdiction of the Su- “The urged had in the district courts. co-extensive with preme Court shall to be transferred here We ordered cases State, civil to all shall extend and hearing and determination. We shall Appeals until a Court of cases Criminal resolve the several issues accordance appellate jurisdiction applicable with exclusive principles. with the by shall be established criminal cases importance Because issues jurisdiction original law. The justice raised to the due administration of general to a Supreme shall extend Court welfare, protection and to the over all control superintending inferior necessary find it at some to discuss and boards all commissions coitrts and govern the rela- length principles Supreme The Court law. created judicial de- legislative tion of the and the habeas to issue writs power have shall partments government under mandamus, warranto, cer- quo corpus, Constitution this State. re- tiorari, other and such prohibition, provides: Constitution Our law, provided writs, bemay as medial government of “The same; and to hear and determine into divided shall be may exercise Supreme Court Legis- separate departments: The three bemay as jurisdiction other further lative, Executive, Judicial; and ex- Each of upon conferred Constitution, the cept provided in this writs power to issue shall have Justices Executive, de- Legislative, and Judicial part of the State corpus any habeas sepa- government partments of shall be any behalf petition by or on distinct, shall exer- rate and and neither and make custody, in actual person held powers properly belonging to cise the himself, or before returnable such writs IV, (1907). the others. Art. either of § any Court, or before Supreme before thereof, in the Court, Judge or District Legislative authority “The supplied) (Emphasis 2. State. Legislature, shall be vested consist- § Repre- ing of a Senate and a House of orig- have shall Courts District “The sentatives; (reservation initiative cases, civil all jurisdiction inal V, referendum). 1 (1907). Art. § juris- exclusive except where criminal, Constitution, byor diction Legislature shall “The court, and such on some rightful subjects legisla- all extend to conferred appellate jurisdiction provided equity; law and in except that the Court Constitution, Dis- law. The Appeals Criminal shall have exclusive Courts, trict or any thereof, judge shall appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases power to issue writs cor- habeas until provided by otherwise statute mandamus, pus, injunction, warranto, quo any event there is conflict as to certiorari, prohibition, writs, and other jurisdiction, Supreme shall Court de- otherwise, necessary prop- remedial or jurisdiction termine which court has er carry orders, into judg- such determination shall be The final. effect ments, or decrees. The District original Courts jurisdiction of Supreme shall also of naturaliza- general superin- shall extend to tion accordance laws of tending control over all inferior courts (Emphasis sup- United States.” Agencies, and all Commissions plied) Boards created law. *4 Court, Appeals, Court Criminal in VII, adopted The new Article in criminal appellate matters and all other corresponding parts, in its reads fol- as issue, power courts shall have to hear and lows : determine writs of habeas corpus,, man- judicial power “The of this shall damus, quo warranto, certiorari, pro- Senate, be sitting vested as a hibition and such other remedial writs Court, Impeachment, Supreme Court of may provided by may as be law and exer- Appeals, the Court of Criminal the Court cise such other further jurisdiction and Judiciary, on the the State Industrial may by as be conferred statute. Each of Court, Review, the Court Bank Judges power or shall have Justices Review, Court Tax and such inter- to any issue writs of habeas to corpus appellate pro- mediate as courts be part petition by the State or on statute, by Courts, District vided and any person behalf of held in actual cus- Boards, Agencies such and Commissions tody and make such writs returnable be- by created or Constitution estab- himself, Supreme fore or before the by adjudicative lished statute as exercise Court, Appellate Courts, or before authority or decisions in individ- render any Court, judge District or thereof proceedings. ual Provided the Court appellate orig- State. The and the Appeals, of Criminal the State Industrial jurisdiction inal Supreme of the Court Court, the and Court of Bank Review and appellate all other courts shall be Tax Review such Court of and provided invoked in the by manner Boards, Agencies and as Commissions by been shall established statute §4. effect, subject power continue by Leg- “The shall be divided change Legislature of the or abolish districts, judicial con- islature into each Courts, Boards, Agencies, said or Com- county of con- sisting of an or entire Municipal or Courts cities missions. tiguous be one counties. There shall incorporated shall continue in ef- towns district, judicial District for each creation, and subject fect shall be have such number Dis- which shall Legislature by abolition alteration Judges Judges, trict Associate District laws, general but shall be limited Special Judges may prescribed and pro- jurisdiction criminal traffic District The Court shall statute. ceedings arising out of infractions original jus- all unlimited jurisdiction provisions of ordinances of cities matters, pro- except as otherwise ticiable au- adopted regulations- duly or of towns Article, powers such vided this ordinances. thorized such § of administrative action of review Existing elect- provided statute. appellate jurisdiction “The Su- or who all who are preme ing Court shall be coextensive districts Associate Judges at District extend to all cases become the State shall
4J1
Judges
District
under
terms of this Whenever
arisen,
the occasion has
this
remain as
given
Article
are con-
shall
Court has
provisions
effect
to the
formerly
stituted for
offices
held
vesting
Constitution
this State
persons
on the effective
judicial
date of
the full
power
judicial
de
Article,
changed by
partment
until
statute.
of government,
requiring
Legislature may
any
delegate
at
time
au- maintenance
proper separation
thority
desig-
to the
Court to
departments
between the three
nate
court rule the
government.
division of
This
position
has been our
State into districts and the
sixty
Thus,
number
for over
years.
in State Bar
judges.’'
7(a).
Commission
ex rel.
v. Sullivan
Williams
703, L.R.A.1915D,
35 Okl.
P.
except
fact
We call attention
(1912),
respondent
attempted
had
variations,
stylistic
certain
Sections
statutory privilege against
hide behind a
of the new Article VII
identical
are
discipline for
and scurrilous matter
false
to Sections
and 2 of the
substance
pleading.
contained
refused the
article,
provisions
those
former
as to
attempt on
ground
had,
that we
“inde
us,
problems
relevant
before
pendent and
statutory
aside from the
namely,
vesting
power
disbarment,
grounds of
the inherent
tribunals,
in enumerated courts and other
suspend
Likewise,
attorneys.”
disbar
original
jurisdiction
Ledbetter,
*5
Dabney
ex
State
rel.
127
issue, hear
authority
and its
and deter-
85, 260
(1927),
P. 454
we relied on the
original
mine
writs.
note
enumerated
proposition that, although,
this
this
"in
state
power
legislative
that
the
to confer
statute,
proceeding
.
authorized
.
.
is
jurisdiction
upon this court is limited
it is well
that a court authorized
settled
further”,
the
“other and
neces-
adjectives
attorney
an
juris
to admit
inherent
has
sarily
legislative
connoting that the
com-
to suspend
diction
or
him for suf
disbar
petence
trenching upon
does not extend to
cause,
equally
ficient
it is
well
settled
authority
or
of
limiting the
this
but,
it
power,
that
has the
when
upon
conferred
it
Constitution. We
proper
out,
case has been made
it
ever
note
Article
that
new
7(a)
Section
duty to
it.” In the matter
its
exercise
is
upon
“un-
VII
the District Courts
confers
427,
Bozarth,
63
In re
P.2d
entitled
178 Okl.
justici-
original jurisdiction of all
limited
we
to an execu
(1937),
726
denied effect
matters”,
respect
sweep-
able
in this
more
thwarting
pardon
our
tive
a means of
ing grant
than
former
of
bestowal
judge
of
who had
lawyer
disbarment
“original
cases,
all
jurisdiction in
civil
property
obtaining
under
been convicted of
except
jurisdic-
criminal
where exclusive
case,
pretenses.
said:
In that
false
Constitution,
by law,
tion is
this
con-
may
legis-
court.”
ferred on some other
that
“It
conceded
be
government
lative branch of the
comparison
Based
this
regulations governing
make reasonable
sections,
phraseology of these
we conclude
of attor-
and disbarment
admission
authority
depart-
that
judicial
powers but
neys in aid
court’s
ment in relation to the issues involved in
or dis-
power
of admission
ultimate
litigation certainly
this
is no
restrict-
more
inherently within the exer-
is
barment
ed
new
under the
Article VII than was
judicial
cise
discretion.”
under
old
In
re-
Article VII.
some
State,
spects,
Legislature
under When
broader
longer
1939,
there no
Clearly, therefore,
that
prece-
determined
new article.
Oklahoma,
bar in
judicial depart-
integrated
an
dents
sustain the
should be
which
integra-
act under
jurisdiction
by repealing
ment’s
under the
Ar-
former
accomplished, a resolution
been
equally significant
ticle
in their
tion had
are
VII
application
adopted by
Board of Governors
jurisdiction
to its
under
to the
“it
essential
stating
new
the Bar
Article.
best interest
of the Bar
department
each
government has
Bar
integrated”
Oklahoma be
execute the
falling nahirally
appointing
lawyers
a committee of
peti-
within its orbit when not expressly placed
tion
petition
therefor. Such a
was filed.
or limited
existence
a similar
Integrated
See
Bar
Court
Sug-
power
Order
in one
the other departments.
gested
Court,
to the
Integration
re
Okla.State
of Nebraska
Bar
State
other enumerated tribunals. And as said
specifically that our
of law within its
right
and inferior
Constitution
(Fla.),
that the
that, although
giving
of
the
government
*6
preting
homa Bar
reviewed the numerous authorities inter-
Constitutions similar to ours.
determining that the Oklahoma Bar should
terim
some 43
303 (1939).
the Oklahoma State Bar
came
functioning,
Docket No.
See In the Matter of
al
an
Oklahoma and
Bar
Executive Council of the State Bar of
vested
Petition
power
integrated,
P.2d 113
action on the
order
governing
matter
Jour.
to
effective, during
40 So.2d
government
to
the
Supreme
regulate
law before the
days
on
any
235 (1939).
Association.
the
of who
provisions
gives
the Constitution of Oklahoma
we entered our formal
courts,
June
Thereafter,
(1939).
under the name of the Okla-
judicial power
body of
of the three
there “is no
after the
right
Florida State
directing
Court
jurisdiction.” We
and control the
Oklahoma,
10 Okla.State Bar Jour.
petition
it the
for the Bar had been
905 and
Constitution,
and
to define and
shall be
.
In that decision we
of American State
was
This Court entered
.
In re
repealing
right
October
it to function as
Bar,
Association,
Supreme
.
departments
establishing an
Integration
created
907:
express
185 Okl.
the
gives
admitted
time
pending
to
Bar Ass’n
Integration
integration.
very
We
Art.
regulate
10, 1939,
regulate
act
it the
noted
order,
grant
7,
held
fact
Bar
the
fin-
be-
in-
to
§
Minn.
And,
practice from that which
quirements.” (Emphasis supplied)
inherent
pose minimum standards for admissions
theory
law, a court
power
aas
that the admission and disbarment of at-
torneys
tive
torneys
phase
ment
United States District
District of Columbia reviewed another
ically belongs
regulate the practice naturally and log-
so intimately connected with the exercise
Association, supra,
officers of the Court
stitute
system. As
re
Association,
State
“Any criterion for
“The
[******]
[*]
“Attorneys
Clephane,
as said in
justice
judicial power
Integration
regulation of
468, 48
A.L.R. 151.
means
act,
of the Court’s
to
that while the
an important
last cited
was a
and
power
provide
[*]
County
N.W.2d 788
we said
impose
133 Neb.
et
government.
conducting
apart
are
Gardner v.
[*]
to
of Nebraska
record has the inherent
al.,
the
case also
Officers,
impose
not,
right
fees and there held
necessary
the law
bar,
from
legislature may
part
distinguishing
283,
[*]
and not a
F.Supp.
belongs
(1951):
under the
the case of In
the courts have
its business.
additional
administration
any statutory
275 N.W.
Conway,
approves
but
to admit at-
[*]
define
assistance
such con-
Laughlin
to other
for the
legisla-
judicial
depart-
[*]
law
234
im-
Bar
265,
re-
properly geared to the
can
fields
power
“Inherent
from the fact
arises
public
keep
if
mind
welfare
we
of the
Court’s creation
from the fact
licensing
manner in
law-
that it is a
to its
court.
It
essential
purpose.
prac-
yers
its
The law
serves
being
dignity
require
not
and does
privilege
is based
tice franchise
.
express
an
grant
to
it. Under
confer
government
requirements
right
our form of
it is
of ability,
the threefold
tinct,
exercise the
character,
supervision.
and neither shall
responsible
powers properly
to either of
belonging
safeguarded
The
welfare
n
limiting
practice to in-
the others.’
merely by
law
requi-
possessed
who
dividuals
provi-
appears
“It
a
constitutional
character,
hut also
ability
site
relating to the
sion similar
our own
practi-
that such
requirement
further
Consti-
division of
is found
thenceforth be officers
shall
tioners
pro-
tutions of most of the states and said
supervision.”
subject to its
the court and
been before the courts on
visions have
supplied)
(Emphasis
numerous occasions
connection
Legisla-
problem
presented.
our course
clearly
from
here
The
appears
It
authority of
authority
prescribe
constitutional
ture is not without
vindicated the
qualifications
prac-
bar
this State
integrate the
for admission to the
this Court to
regulate
and control
tice of law. Neither is such
otherwise to
made
position was
without
practice of law. This
limitation.”
after,
proceeding
when, shortly
clearer
length
quoted
then
at
from the
some
We
Bledsoe,
264, 97
re
P.2d
186 Okl.
entitled
Opinion
Justices,
of the
then recent
held
there
before us.
(1939),
came
Mass. 607,
180 N.E.
Art.
Okla.Const.
we reviewed Moreover,
position
our
did not confine
decisions,
prior
both
and re-examined our
our exercise of
to the conduct of
repeal
legislative
before and after the
others,
lawyers or of
either inside the court-
provisions
regulation and dis-
relative to the
room inor
direct connection with “forensic”
cipline of the bar.
cited decisions
McConnell,
matters.
Crawford v.
provisions
having
other states
constitutional
(1935),
within the term
Title
law.’
282 N.Y.
417
Barlow,
status, he
legal
engaged
is
Wright v.
a desired
ported by
ex rel.
State
practice
In re
The title searcher/is ex
(1936);
of law.
294,
95
268
131 Neb.
N.W.
empt
he
his task “without
321,
(1951);
performs
see
if
Baker,
A.2d 505
8
85
N.J.
legal
giving
ef
opinion
Colo.
or advice as to the
Atty.
Jersin,
v.
101
ex rel.
Gen.
People
Reardon,
Opinion
is found.”
re
v.
fect what
406,
668
Clark
(1937);
P.2d
74
313,
;
607,
Justices,
318.
666,
(1937)
407
289 Mass.
194 N.E.
104 S.W.2d
Mo.App.
231
exempt only
is
of Bar The work of the accountant
Mississippi
Board
Darby v.
State
Id.
(Miss.1966);
legal
if it is “dissociated from
advice.”
Admissions,
684
185 So.2d
Co.,
who,
164
of a
the exercise
commission
Abel Constr.
One
compare Niklaus v.
language de
842,
conveyance,
draw
selects
(1957).
904
Neb.
83 N.W.2d
prac
is
signed
a certain effect
to create
urged upon us that acts
It has been
v.
ticing
Bar of Arizona Ari
law. State
lawyer’s
part of the
properly which
Co.,
re
supra;
Trust
zona Land Title &
part of the
integral
form an
work
Matthews,
P.2d
111
57 Idaho
calling, and
legitimate activity of another
Washington
State Bar
(1936);
A.L.R.
that,
an
performance
these acts
Realtors,
Washington
Assoc. v.
Assoc.
an in
person,
to such
unlicensed
incidental
plans,
is one who draws estate
supra. So
vocation,
not
dependent
penalties
be
should
legal analysis. Frazee v. Citizens
involving
thereby
theory
he
inflicted
Co., supra; Oregon
Fidelity
Trust
Bank &
extent, this
practices law. To a certain
Co., supra.
v.
Miller &
Bar
H.
State
John
is
is sound. “There
contention
layman
a will for another
A
who draws
drafting of
proposition
People
rel.
ex
necessarily practicing
is
law.
documents,
merely
to the
incidental
when
People’s
Assoc. v.
Stock
Illinois
Bar
State
occupation,
is not the
work
a distinct
901;
Bank, 344 Ill.
Yards
N.E.
although
documents
Baker, supra.
is one who draws
So
In re
Bar
consequences.” Lowell
legal
People v.
or contracts.
legal instruments
Loeb,
176,52
Assoc. v.
315 Mass.
N.E.2d
Alfani,
layman
evaluates
supra. A
who
goes on to
(1943).
opinion
then
above
it,
claim,
based
to settle
and undertakes
supporting
for the
cite a mass of
authorities
principles,
prac
legal
is
upon applicable
expound
proposition, and to
some well
Liberty
Jones,
v.
ticing
Mut. Ins. Co.
examples
chosen
of the activities
“legal in
furnishes
supra. A bank which
legitimately may
performed
as “inci
respect to
legal
advice
formation
performance
of other service
dental
bonds,
stocks,
*11
upon
principles,
approach
forms are not available from the
Based
these
Attorney
purchase, but
record before us.
General nor for
problems
raised
here,
brought
corporate
defendants
caused
the causes were
After
complying
printed
stipulation
to each
blank forms to be
at
parties entered into a
expense
following salient
their own
and furnished
case,
which established
governmental
employing
entities
de-
such
facts:
consultants;
fendants as financial
corporate
respective
each of the
(1) That
defendants,
(5)
corporate
That each
prior
filing of the suit
defendant’s em-
ployment
respective
Court,
governmental
performed
proceedings
District
all
entity
procured
relating
particular
issue han-
the result
solici-
bond
tation,
firms,
competition
it,
required
with other bond
including preparation of
dled
data,
as a result of
pro-
announcing
news items
con-
and that thereafter the
statistical
bonds,
sideration of
ceedings
by the of-
issuance of the
without
prepared
were
either
prior
corporate
connection of the
entity
defend-
issuing governmental
ficials of the
any
ants or
attorneys
agents
employees,
of the
or
supervision
under the
certified
attorneys,
of the bond
with
entity, along
with
the officials of
defendants to
governmental entity;
others,
attorneys”,
as “market
a classifica-
attorneys
opinion
tion of
whose favorable
(6) That the
respective
officials of the
required by
purchasers
would
governmental
working
entities lack
knowl-
bonds,
prepared directly by
or were
said
edge
issues,
relating
laws
to bond
attorneys
attorneys
and that said
were
but could have obtained
copy
of the At-
employed by
governmental
entities to
torney
and, by
General’s manual aforesaid
complete
proceedings
because
directions,
following the
pro-
could have
possible
feared the
effect of the
adverse
acceptable
an
transcript
duced
of the bond
District
validity
Court suit
proceedings;
bonds;
(7)
That
failure to follow the manual
(2)
respective corporate
That
de-
prescribed
directions and the
forms would
fendants would have conducted all said
result in a
approval
refusal of
by the Bond
proceedings had not the District Court ac- Commissioner, which then could have been
filed;
tions been
sought only by mandamus, as there are no
statutory
proceedings;
validation
and that
(3)
among necessary parts
pro-
That
the contract
corporate
between the
defend-
ceedings for bond elections and the issuance
governmental
ants and the
agencies does
and sale of
(a)
bonds are
enactment of a
of,
not include institution
or participation
resolution, compliance
form and in
with
in, any such
proceedings.
mandamus
given
prepared
directions
in a
manual
We understand
stipulations
these
estab-
Attorney
General of Oklahoma as ex
lish, for
purposes
proceeding,
Commissioner;
Bond
officio
(b) in con-
the defendants merely reproduced
nection with such bond election a statement
prepared
forms
General,
the Attorney
“purpose”
accordance
directions
furnished
districts,
them to the school
given in
manual;
said
(c)
procla-
election
filled them out according to the directions
mation and
publica-
notice of election and
set
out
Attorney
General’s handbook.
tion thereof in accordance with directions
O.S.1961,
Title 62
13, provides:
§§11
manual;
in said
11. Bond
Ҥ
Commissioner.—The At-
(4) That Oklahoma bond issues and the
torney
hereby
General is
made ex officio
proceedings therefor must be submitted to
Bond Commissioner of the State of Okla-
the Attorney General as Bond Commission-
homa.
approval
er for
requires
that he
13. Duties of Bond Commissioner.
proceedings
Ҥ
shall be in
provided by
form
aforesaid,
manual
—Certificate-Bonds
with blanks filled in
incontestable after
compliance
substantial
manual,
with days.
shall be
duty
of the Bond
—It
Bank,
People’s
forms
v.
prepare
uniform
Assoc.
Stock Yards-State
Commissioner
supra;
procedure
Depew
un-
prescribe a
v.
of Credit
method
Wichita Assoc.
Men, Inc., supra;
all
cases
rel.
der the
State ex
laws
Johnson
Childe,
Alfani,
supra; People
supra),
to issue
securi-
it is desired
where
*12
bonds,
township,
any county,
permitting,
policy
in
a
or of
in
as matter of
ties or
convenience,
political
public
types
or
sub-
municipality
other
certain
of
practice
persons. Conway-
by
the State of Okla-
unlicensed
divisions thereof of
homa;
duty of Bogue Realty
be
further
Bar
and it shall
the
Inv. Co. v. Denver
Assoc.,
Nelson,
into
supra;
to examine
said Bond
Cowern v.
207 Minn.
Commissioner
issued,
;
pass upon
security
any
(1941)
Dinger,
so
N.W. 795
State v.
by
supra;
cer-
security,
compare People
when declared
&
v. Title Guar.
be
Co.,
of said Bond Commissioner
Trust
One matter the control of admissions briefly. challenged The defendants have discipline of those who admitted, the standing prohibition to main- the bar associations *13 three, practice tain these actions. In the proved each of the those to who have plaintiffs qualifications were the Oklahoma Bar Associa- and admitted. been and County the system Bar Association As incidents the adminis- this county in which the action was filed. justice public tration of is aided and the each, plaintiffs’ petitions alleged image that legal profession is en- they public irreparable and the will suffer hanced.” damage enjoined unless the defendants are As preamble shown to the Rules engaging practice from in the unauthorized Creating Controlling the and of law. Association (Title App. Ch. O.S.1971 Sperry (Fla.), 1961), State v. 140 So.2d and said Association was created: 595,it was said: public “In the interest for the advance- justice ment the administration ac- prac- “The prohibiting reason for law, cording in to and to aid courts tice of law those not been who have carrying justice; on the administration practice examined qualified and found to part to foster and maintain on the is frequently It misunderstood. is not practice high engaged those in law protect to done aid or the members of the integrity, learning, competence, ideals of profession
legal creating in either public service, and high and standards maintaining monopoly shop. or closed conduct; It protect public is done from lic being if any, matters of the code of interest, lawyers judicial department advised and control by unqualified persons in conduct are bound to observe. represented matter which, exercise can of infractions in the over in whom little, legal pub- dignity advance and will legal profession and the individual mem- [*] “ . end . [*] . [*] encourage practices improve responsibility profession; [*] the honor and [*] [*] that public
“It cannot be thereof, denied that the bers effectively be more suffers, public image as does both the efficiently discharged public in inter- legal profession est, and our acting police powers within the system, qualified when those not do so vested in it the Constitution of * * permitted to hold out themselves qualified to practice worthy law and as unique The Oklahoma Bar Association is of the trust and confidence of those who among attorneys other associations legal problems solution which that it is the one this require trained advice and counsel. Court, in the of the power exercise herein “If the discussed, truth be known the protect public unauthorized has created to qualified against those not the unauthorized actually admitted creates and it is organized work the one bar association legal profession speak because of the that is in position errors and act in mistakes of throughout State, those who for illegally others matters generally. part, JACKSON, J., concurs dissents strong arguments recognize that part. at affording individual made for been associa county bar torneys local or part JACKSON, (concurring in an action heard Justice to be right tions dissenting part). by the one, evidenced present like the annotation re- injunctive in the I in the discussed concur view cited and cases inclusive, 64-77, prohibition both and that lief should be denied 90 A.L.R.2d at at “Attorneys Am.Jur.2d, granted. should be the footnotes However, present cases Law”, in the Legislature opinion am of I no distinction plaintiffs’ petitions made did not intend leave a vacuum when them, they, either injury between the repealed Integrated its Bar Act alleged defendants’ suffer from would practitioners, do not be- but I unlicensed injury practice and unauthorized duty of writ- lieve we should assume petitions might (Plaintiffs’ suffer. public ing control unlicensed busi- law to all those will and the alleged merely occupations title com- nesses and such as damage defend unless irreparable suffer brokers, clubs, panies, estate automobile real un engaging enjoined from ants are counsel, agencies, adjusters, tax collection Consequently, law.) authorized accountants, companies, banks and trust con indicated of what is herein view merchants, architects, whose ac- and bond *14 to delegation of duties cerning this Court’s primarily to the ad- tivities are unrelated “arm”, as its Bar Association the Oklahoma justice. agree that ministration do I in practice regulation of of law in the lawfully suppress prep- may this court “confusion, not if and of the this State pleadings wills and aration and independent might “from result chaos” that by practitioners that unlicensed documents law- individual proceedings of this sort” in the courts. are destined for consideration county bar associa years and local and/or agree I that court direct Dade-Common tions of this (see in- to initiate Bar Association Dade Co. v. North wealth Title Ins. junctive procedures prevent disbarred hold that Ass’n., Fla., 723), we 152 So.2d in the suspended lawyers engaging and from the Oklahoma Bar Association contrary holding practice of since a of this party bring an action proper would in with this conflict court’s opinion it is our Accordingly, character. not disbar. I would author- suspend and County court, Payne in the that the trial file Association to ize the Oklahoma Bar case, sustaining, as to erred not sup- for the any action district appeared aas County Bar that Association practitioner with- pression an unlicensed action, plaintiff the defendants’ in that approval court. prior of this out the capacities to sue challenge plaintiffs’ other states am well aware most I therein. prohibit held that courts have ac- opinion As it is that no cause of our practitioners. of law unlicensed therefor, injunctive tion has been shown statutory authoriza- have done so Some sought against de- plaintiffs relief that 51, and by Title Secs. 87 Connecticut tion: involved actions here fendants in three 605-14, Rev.Sts., 7, Sec. 88; Hawaii Vol. respondent judges is denied and the 37, part, Georgia, Code pocket page further therein. prohibited proceeding from 99, 9-402, and and 9-407 Georgia pages 98 Ill.Sts., Illinois, part, page 58; in pocket WILLIAMS, BERRY, and J., C. Alabama, 46, 13, 1; Title Sec. Title Sec. SIMMS, HODGES, JJ., and Sts., LAVENDER Alaska, Pro- Business and 42; Alaska concur. Arkansas, fessions, Ark. 08.08.230; Sec.
Sts., and Legal Admissions Unauthorized Arizona, Practice, 25-217; DAVISON, IRWIN, J., Secs. J.,C.V. and 25-205— 32, Occupations, Title Sec. Professions concur result. 422 Cal.Sts., 7, California, power, legislative or
261;
Article
Secs.
This court’s
whether
6125,6126,
Idaho,
Sts.,
judicial,
the limita-
6127;
At-
must
exercised
Idaho
within
Law,
imposed by
tions
our
torneys
Counselors
Article
at
3-418—3-
Constitution.
Ind.Sts.,
2,
2,
Indiana,
Okl.Const., provides
“All
104;
Attorneys,
per-
Burns
* *
*
Kentucky, Ky.Rev.Sts.1971,
sons
7401;
right
Sec.
inherent
4—
30.010,
Maine,
gains
industry.”
page 467;
of their own
In State
Maine Rev.
Riedell,
2,
4-807,
Short, Atty.
pages
ex rel.
Sts.Ann.,
263 and
109Okl.
Sec.
Gen.
Vol.
35,
684,
765,
42
264.
courts
held that a li-
P.
A.L.R.
we held:
Other
cense to
the nature of a
is in
204,
“House Bill No.
Laws
Session
franchise,
property right,
and entitled to
Accountancy
c.
Act
known
protection
* *
*
competition
from
an unli-
so
prohibits
far as it
uncerti-
person.
Competitor—
censed
See Anno.
holding
fied accountants from
themselves
Illegal
Injunction,
at
A.L.R.2d
professional
Acts—
out as
expert
or
accountants
page
any lawyer
or
Under
view
compensation
or
engaging
auditors
group
lawyers
would
be authorized
profession,
of that
inis
file
to enjoin
actions
the unlicensed com-
spirit
express pro-
conflict
with
petitor.
void,
vision of the
Constitution
My
this,
right
suggesting judicial
abridges
private
that it
views
restraint
early
property,
right
concepts.
infringes upon
stem from
constitutional
Haskell,
Huston,
private
purely
State ex rel.
contract
in matters
Governor
Judge,
bearing
perceptible
concern
no
relation to
(on
P.
general
public welfare,
this court
rehearing),
there-
said:
“ *
monopoly
fore tends
create a
* *
legislation is
Judicial
profession of accountancy for the benefit
popular
accord
Every-
institutions.
accountants,
of certified
and denies to un-
thing
legislative,
in nature
when not in-
equal protec-
certified
accountants
administration,
cidental to
*15
is
tion
enjoyment
of the laws and
express organic provision
denied.to
gains
industry.”
of their own
judiciary.
(Bunn’s
4
1,
Section
Ed.)
art.
Whetsel,
See also
County Attorney v.
4, 1,
50
Article
Now
Okla-
§
[Const.].”
§
Wood,
193,
(licensing
207 Okl.
423 necessarily period would (1929-1939) in this case authorizes our decision Since provisions. those prac- be influenced regulate unlicensed court action to in connection could arise titioner suggested herein would procedure occupations and legitimate numerous entirely helpless. If public not leave the guided de- we should businesses incompe is practitioner so an unlicensed is process by promotive what cisional ac public his tent as nuisance to become people, happiness of the welfare and mutual Ed enjoined. Kenyon v. tivities con- government we serve. whose 3, 739; Balch v. mundson, 80 Okl. P. 193 of Ari- nection the decision State Bar State, 146, 776; Mackey v. 164 P. 65 Okl. Co., Title Trust Arizona Land zona v. & 175, Aycock, 365; and 12 201 P. 76, 1, and the reaction Ariz. P.2d O.S.1971, an un We have held that 1397. § year later, adop- people one reflected his practitioner licensed hire is liable to constitution, tion of Arizona Article damages negli his employer caused point. is in deeds, notes, gent preparation of and mort Okl., Eaton, Creating gages. Latson v. P.2d In Article of the Rules VII Association, Controlling the IRWIN, (concurring results). O.S.1971, App. page (Vol. 439) Ch. Justice committee, provision budget is for a recognize made I that there is the ma- cited hearings, jority It is opinion review this court. decisions of our numerous provided “The therein that Court are sister states and that those decisions budget to proposed shall review said de- purpose illustrating cited for the what expenditure if the proposed termine items of to the states done reference police powers are within the Court’s unauthorized law: I necessary justice.” opinion recognize administration of the majority provision This to confine meaning intended our not be that this construed imposed use of court bar to those necessarily dues ac- those decisions. would follow necessary However, opinion recog- tivities which are in the adminis- majority since the justice. suppress tration of If in- penalties actions that whether should be nizes necessary practitioner upon being the unlicensed theory voked that there is the administration of justice appropri- it conducted an unauthorized require lawyers depends ate finance them. the facts and circumstances However, if case, for the bene- particular actions are each am the view I unnecessary fit of the and not related ad- discuss those cases which *16 ministration it justice only necessary disposing fair that not of the issues is are operation. presented proceedings. should finance the in the On instant the other hand if the are for the actions I concur results reached not lawyers benefit of related to ad- my majority of associates Judicial justice only ministration of it fair is Department is vested with proper lawyers provide the finances regulate prac- to control and outside the framework of the Oklahoma prevent tice of and to the intrusion law Bar Association. persons unlicensed into the without regard are to whether their acts “forensic” Legislature’s Integrated In the Bar Act the re- or “non-forensic”. also concur in I pro- (enacted repealed 1939) it was 1929— Sec. 46 not sults that defendants should reached vided in (Sec. O.S.1931) prohibited conducting their activi- from person no shall law Oklahoma indi- ties in the record the manner which unless he is an active member of cates conducting are activities. In (Sec. O.S.1931) Bar. Sec. provided any person, not an numerous active the conduct of business activities, Bar, in- member who practiced law some elements law guilty operation those would be of a misdemean- and the successful volved Opinions during require application or. of this court written businesses legal principles completion but the
documents that be of some conse-
quences. my opinion, completion documents, merely incidental business, operation
to the overall grounds imposition
not sufficient for the
penalties upon theory that it constitutes practi- unlicensed
tioners.
Although majority opinion may not
necessarily bottomed above
reasoning, theory a similar is alluded majority opinion.
amI authorized to state that Mr. Vice Chief DAVISON concurs Justice expressed.
views herein HARVEY, Appellee,
G. A.
The NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE OF TULSA, OLKAHOMA, a National Bank-
ing Appellant. Association,
No. 43886.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
July 25, 1972. July 31,
As Corrected 1972.
Rehearing
Denied
Nov.
notes
investments, taxation,
pursuit
nonlegal
character
is involved
property”
securities or
or other
calling”,
v.
another
said Gardner
law”, despite
in “a considerable
Here, says
Conway, supra.
the court
is
incident to
an
argument that this
Assoc, Loeb, supra,
Bar
v.
“we enter
Lowell
Opinion of the
In re
trade.
investment
ground.”
is
to de
debatable
There
need
Assoc.
supra; compare State
Justices,
velop
fact situation
information
& Trust
Bank
v. Connecticut
of Connecticut
coming to
Creditors
judgment.
before
Co.,