Brief for the Respondent in Opposition — Poppenheimer v. Clty of Memphis

Re NEI ENTE te CERES IO LO

PLLA OOD A EATER T ONE Pe

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ser re | os Page No

Statement of the Cage... ae.ssccsccnnisnesesconrneecsnnises 2

Opinion of the Supreme Court of Tennessee in.

RAEN SSE RRR eee sliantkencinasiine *. 14

PIE i ssicenshceesachaerisnitccsuaiesasseininlohaeandianianbinnenenaen’ 15

‘TABLE OF AUTHORITIES: |

- Eighth Amendment to Article 11,

Section 9 of the Constitution of

~the State of Tennessee ........ 2, 4; 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12

: __ Statutes

Tennessee Code Annotated Section 6-3702 .......... °8

Tennessee Code Ammotated Section 6-3723 .......... 4,9.

Tennessee Code Annotated Section 5-118 .......... 4, 9

_ 1969 Private Acts of Tennessee, é

Chapter I sceshesitissieupicaaceniesnsetisonicanionslineetiteetmeie he 5, 6

1933 Private Acts of Tennessee . 7 |

SINE SOUR caneascdniiccncdaeuas unas 4,10, 16,17

Section 847 et seq. Charter of | eet r

i iis, me: | oa

Cases

Frazier v. Carr, 210 Tenn. 565, 360 S.W. 2d 449.. 13

Glasgow v. Fox, 214 Tenn. 656, 383 S.W. 249... 10 -

- Knox v. Batson, 217 Tenn. 620, 399 S.W. 2d 765.. 13

Metropolitan. Government -of Nashville and

Davidson County v.-Poe, - , |

215 Tenn. 58, 883 S.W. 2d :-265........c.ccccccccceseseleeeee 10

5

| | ‘Appendix

"1933 Private Acts of Tennessee

- Chapter 413 (Section 847-850, —

os

Charter of the City of Memphis) |

te

eereeece

1

5, 16, 17

LIN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

| POP POPPENHEIMER, Et Al,

PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS at

CITY OF MEMPHIS AND SHELBY COUNTY

QUARTERLY COURT AND.COMMISSIONERS, _

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDEN ad |

| saieesiaiiiioer camara ona To

_ PETITION FOR-WRIT OF CERTIORARI - -

| &

a:

TO THE. HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

- ASSO@ATE JUSTICES OF THE UNITED

STATES SUPREME COURT:

This brief is respectfully filed in behalf of the

Defendants City of Memphis and Shelby County

Quarterly Court and Commissioners in opposition

to the petition for writ of certiorari filed hereon.

I STATEMENT OF THE CASE

. The Respondents. feel,. with all deference to the’

Petitioners, that a statement of the history of this

cinailiisats

2

case is ‘necessary. to aid this court in its decision,. -

, and that such a.statement was succinctly enunciated |

by the Tennessee Supreme Court in its opinion, be-

ginning on page 32 of the Petition for Writ of Cer-.

tiorari. The Supreme Court of Tennesses made the

following statement:

: “Appellants, icin ‘below, citizens and

taxpayers of Shelby County, filed an original bill -

in the Chancery Court of that County seeking to

-enjoin appellees, defendants below, from con-

- summating contracts for consolidation of the hos- —

pitals of the City of Memphis and Shelby County

and the jointly operdted Oakville Memorial

—

The bill alleged the pending consolidation of the

. hospitals by contract was unconstitutional because

it was not submitted by a referendum to the voters

of Memphis and Shelby County for their approval

as required by the Eighth Amendment to Article :

7 Section 9, of the — of Tennessee. |

‘* The contract was sete by the City of Memphis

~~and the Board of Commissioners.of Shelby Coun-

___ ty and the Shelby County Quarterly Court on n May

12, 1969.

. The contract. provides i, date to be

~

—2— *s

————

pees a

July 1, 1969. It provides for the funding ‘of the

hospital for the years 1969 through 1972 setting

_ forth the percentage of the annual budget of. the

hospitals by the respective parties during the fiscal

ae, from’ July 1, 1969, through eu 30, 1973.

_ During the transition period, all capital improve-

~ ments to the hospitals are to be shared: by the City 7

and County on the same basis for sharing opera- ~

tidn costs. All properties. of. the City hospitals are

_, to be conveyed to Shelby County on or before

| is de a 1972.

The employees of the City hospitals’ are to be-

come employees of Shelby. County’ on or before

July 1, 1972.

~ The contract, also, provides the annual inciaee a

for all the hospitals during the transition period

be subject to approval of the governing bodies of

the _ and County. mf tee ee

- The contract provides either party may cancel the -

“contract by giving six months written notice of

cancellation during the first two years of cis

agreement.

Upon the filing of the bill, the Chancellor granted

a

ce

a temporary injunction and set the hearing for

| Suly 1, 1969.

a

Defendants filed motions‘to disthiss the bill alleg-

ing the contract was a legal agreement properly

executed under authority of T.C.A. Section 5-113

. and Chapter 413, Private Acts of 1938. The mo-

_ tions further alleged the contract’ was legally

drafted. and executed under authority of T.C.A.

Section 6-3723 and eee 189, deaseain Acts ai

1969. -

—_ < hearing, the Chasicellor dinsslvsa. the .

temporary" injunction and set the motions to dis-

miss the bill for a hearing on September 22, 1969: -

On July 7, 1969, complainants filed an amended.

and. supplemental bill. for an injunction in which |

it was alleged the City of: Memphis had adopted

home rule by a vote of the people in 1963. That ©

Chapter 189, Private Acts of 1969, is unconstitu-

tional because it is an Act private and local’ in

form and effect and.violates that part of Article —

11, Section 9, of the Constitution which provides: _

‘The general assembly shall act with respect to a _

home rule inunicipality only by laws which are 3

cnet in terms and effect.’

i The dinetided- and ‘suppleriental bill further al- .

leges unless the contract for the consolidation of .

g

ape tek

' the City and County hospitals is submitted to the

voters of the City and County for ratification the

‘same will result in unconstitutional legislation in.

violation of Article 1, Section 8, Article II, Sec-

tions 9 and 16 of the Constitution of Tennessee;.-.

_and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu-

tion of the United States.

To the amerided and supplemental bill all defen- :

_ dants filed motions to dismiss. substantially aipon.

the grounds set out above in the motions to dismisS

the wae bill. :

~The Chancellor appointed several. prominent At-

torneys of the Memphis and Shelby County Bar

to file briefs in the matter as Amicus Curiae. |

/

the respective. parties and Amicus Curiae.

et.

ae

a

The Chancellor filed a ‘memorandum opinon in 4

which he properly held the principal issue is

whether the home rule amendment. to Article 11,

Section 9, of: ‘the Constitution of Tennessee applies ©

to the consolidation of the hospital facilities of

"the City of Memphis and Shelby County. He held

a are

The matter was finned upon the bills, motions : .

_ dismiss, exhibits to the pleadings and briefs of

<>

nt

- it/did not and ‘itethiaped the tiled, amended

and supplemental bills. ,

We affirm the decree of the Chancellor.”

& -

OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Petitioners presented a similar position to the

Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee as that

which they generally set forth in their Petition for

Writ.of Certiorari. The Tennessee Supreme Court,

- in sustaining the action of the Chancellor in dis- ©

missing the Petitioners’ bill, made the following

statements as noted on page 35 et seq. of recmaaie

= for a Writ of Certiorari:

“Complainants have appealed and. assigned five

alleged errors.

The first assignment insists the Chancellor erred

in failing to hold the Seventh amendment to Ar- ©

ticle 11, Section 9, of our constitution applied to

Chapter 189, Private Acts of 1969. )

We disegres. The Act. is permissive legislation

authorizing Shelby. County by and through its

Quarteily Court and Board of Commissioners to

“enter into a contract with the City of Memphis

for the operation, maintenance and control of all

the governmental hospitals within Shelby- County.

ee ae

Ses

‘. _, Memphis |

_ -enth Amendments to Arti¢le 11, Section 9, of the

_ 4 . “< . |

; é

" Section I of the Act provides: 9

‘That the County of Shelby be and it is hereby

~ authorized by. and through its Quarterly County

Court and Board of Commissioners to enter into

contracts with the City of Memphis through its -

- pr oper authorities for - the operation, mainte-

nance and control of the Shelby County Hospi- —

_ tal, Oakville Memorial ‘Hospital and the City of

Mempuie Hospitals.’ |

- Section 4 of. the Act Saari

‘That. the Quarterly Court of Shelby County: —

and the Board ‘of Commissioners of Shelby |

County be and they are hereby authorized by

agreement with the Mayor and legislative body

of the City of Memphis to create and establish :

the appointment of, tenure of service, and qual-

ifications of the Memphis and Shelby County

Board of Hospital Trustees; such agreerhent, if _

‘made to be evidenced by an ordinance passed _

- by the legislative body of the City of Memphis,

the terms of such ordinance shall be embodied

in and concurred in by a resolution of the Quar-

terly Court of Shelby County.’

[

It is clear he Act i is not mandatory on the City of

nd does not violate the Sixth and Sev-

Constitution of this State.

a

Assigments of error two and three assail the action

of the Chancellor in holding the provisions of the

Eighth Amendment to Arti¢le 11, Section 9, of the

Constitution. of Tennessee had no application to”

this case. |

_ The Eighth Amendment to Article 11, Section 9,

of the Constitution réads as follows:

‘The General: Assembly may provide for the

consolidation of any or ail of the governmental

and corporate functions.now or hereafter vested <

in municipal corporations with the government-

al and corporate functions now or hereafter

‘vested in the counties in which such municipal

corporations are located ; provided such consoli-

dations shall not become effective until sub-—

mitted to the qualified voters residing within —

the municipal corporation and in. the-county _~

outside thereof, and approved by a horton al

those voting with the municipal corporation and

_ by a majority of those voting i in the county aut

_ Side the municipal corporation.’

The amendment is not self-executing and is imple- |

_ mented by Chapter 120, Public Acts of 1957, codi-

‘fied as T.C. A. Section 6-3701, et seq.

3 Section 2 of the Act, codified as T.C. ~ Section

6-3702, provides, i in b cuins

peak

~\

‘It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent

and purpose of this Chapter to provide for the

consolidation of all, or substantially all, of the —

governmental and corporate functions now or

hereafter vested in municipal a ioe with

the governmental and corporate functions now ~

or hereafter vested in the counties in which such 7

municipal corporations are located, and to pro-

“ vide for the creation of* metropolitan’ govern-

ments which may be used to fulfill the unique

and urgent needs of modern metropolitan

areas.’

- arthenote: Section 22 of the Act, codified as

T.C.A. Section 6-3723, provides: :

‘Nothing in this Chapter. shall be construed to

alter, abridge or abrogate any provision of Sec- .

_ tions 5-113:and 49-404 or any other law, prac- .

tice, custom, or tradition with respect to con-

-_tractual, cooperative, unilateral or other devices ©

. for simplifying or expediting municipal or bas

county . government.’ :

pv on? Section 5- 113 provides:

‘The Quarterly County Court of any County ‘ive

the chief legislative body (of any municipality

that lies within the boundaries of said county

are authorized and empowered to enter into

any such agreements, compacts, or contractual

relations as may be desirable or necessary for

the purpose of permitting said county-and said

municipality to conduct, operate, or maintain,

either. jointly or by one (1) agency for the

other, desirable and necessary services or fune-

tions, under such terms as may be agreed upon

bed the two (2) agencies.’ ,

a

i | Thus, it is abundantly clear ‘the predominant in-

tent of the Act is to provide consolidation of all

or substantially all of the governmental and cor:

porate functions of county and city governments

into one new’metropolitan government ....’ Glas-

gow vs. Fox, 214 Tenn. 656, 383 S.W. 2d 9 (1964) :

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and David-

son County vs. Poe, 215 Tenn. 53, 383 S. W. Aae)

- 265 (1964). :

Chapter 413, Private Acts of 1933, which consti-

tutes.a part of the charter of the City of Memphis,

is an enabling Act which authorizes Shelby County

and all municipalities therein to consolidate or

- Operate jointly any or all governmental or corpo-

rate activities or functions of the county.and mu-

nicipal corporations. .

We conclude, as did the Chancellor, the Eighth

Amendment to Article 11, Section 9, of the Con-

_ stitution cannot have any application to the con-

—10—

_ ror in failing to find the contract entered into was

tract consolidating the hospitals of. the City and

_ County.

We will now consider assignment of ‘error five.

This assignment insists the Chancellor was in er-

~ in violation of the constitutional rights of the peo- --

ple of Memphis and Shelby County under the

Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the

_ United States, Article 1, Section 8, and Article 11,

Section 9, to vote on the consolidation of:the hos-

pitals.

The citizeris.of Memphis and Shelby County are

taxpayers of Shelby County. The governing bodies

of the City and County are elected by the citizens

and taxpayers of Memphis and Shelby County.

. The ‘operation of the hospitals is one of many of

the responsibilities of-the government of the ‘City

and County.

The Quarterly Court and the Board of Commis-

sioners of Shelby County, as well as the Mayor

‘ and City Council of Memphis, are elected by the

people. The contract was authorized by the gen-

: eral law of this State. .

Gish of thd goviening bodies of the City of Mem-———. -

—l1—

phis and Shelby County authorized, approved’ and

’ adopted the contract as representatives of the peo-

ple. Hence, the people of Memphis and. Shelby

County have not been denied their vote in viola-

tion of the Constitution of this State_or ofthe

_ United States. ~

There is a motion to strike the fourth assignment >

of error by appellees on the ground the question

‘is raised in this Court for the first time.

We are of the opinion we must grant the motion

and strike the assignment and exhibits thereto al-

leged to ——— same.

The nesigeinan challenges the right of the Chan-

cellor to appoint Amicus Curiae. No objection to

_ this action of the Chancellor appears in the record.

There is attached to petitioners’ brief certain ex-

_ hibits alleged to support the assignment consisting

mostly of newspaper clippings which do not ap-

pear in the record.

| 6.

The decree of the Chancellor is affirmed with -

costs.”

‘The Tennessee Aapre Cos bie: prior to the

case at bar indicated that the Eighth Amendment to

Article XI, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State

of Tennessee was not self executing. In its decision

—12—

in 1962 case of Frazier v. — 210 Tenn. +565, 360

‘S. W. 2d 449 at page 451 the Court said:

“Tt will be: noticed that the Eighth Amendment i is

‘not self executing. Therefore, as a condition pre-

cedent to its becoming effective it must be imple-

mented by legislative enactment. It was so ‘imple-

mentsd by Chapter 120 of the Public Acts of 1957,

Chapter 199, Public Acts of 1961, and by Chapter

408, Private Acts of 1961. The two Publi¢ Acts.

_ are codified commencing at 6-3701 T.C.A.” -

Further in its opthidn the Court indicated:

“In 1957 the legislature enacted Public Act Chap-

Aer 120, Section 6-3701 et seq., T.C.A. to imple-

ment constitutional amendment Number 8 since

that evs is not self executing.”

‘The Petitioners herein subsequently filed a petition

to rehear before the Tennessee Supreme Court, after

consideration of which the Court made the following

statement:

“Appellants-have filed a petition to rehear which

makes no new argument, points out no matters

overlooked or cites any new and decisive authori-

ty which was overlooked by this Court.

Hence, the petition must’ be denied. Knox vs. Bat-

son, 217 Tenn. 620, 399 S.W. (2d) 765. —

See also Rule 32 of this. Court.” |

ss

6

Thus, the Defendants rely on the opinion of the

Supreme Court of the State.of Tennessee, including

its denial of the petition to rehear, which succinctly

expresses the historical and factual aspects of the

- ease and correctly determines the legal issues invol-

_ ved, and submit same i reply to the Petition for a

Writ of Certiorari and the alleged assignments of

error contained therein. |

CONCLUSION

It is respectfully submitted that the decision of the

Tennessee Supreme Court was eminently correct and

that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari does not

meet the prerequisites for the granting of a writ of |

certiorari as set forth by this Honorable Court.

Therefore, Respondents. respectfully move the dis- .

‘missal of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

_ Respectfully submitted,

James M. Manire

E. Brady Bartusch ?

Attorneys for Defendant City of Memphis

- 125 North Main Street - |

Memphis, Tennessee 38103

oY na ae,

C. Cleveland Drennon ,

Hearn Tidwell |

Attorneys for Defendant Shelby County

160 North Main Street

Memphis, Tennessee 38103 -

ae CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that T have this day raaiiol three

copies of this Brief in Opposition to Petition for

Writ of Certiorari to the Attorney for Petitioners, .

\W. Slater Hollis, P. O. Box 80876, Memphis, Ten-

‘ nessee-38111, this 18th-day of June, 1971.

James M. Manire

APPENDIX e

Sec. 847. Consolidation and joint operation of gov-

ernmental functions of the city with Shel-

by County — Authority granted.

Shelby County and/or all municipal corporations ;

and/or other local governmental agencies located

in said county are authorized and empowered to

pe ied

~ consolidate or operate jointly any or all govern-

mental or corporate activities or functions of said .

county and/or municipal corporations and/or other:

local governmental -agencies located therein which

may now or hereafter be authorized to operate or

- conduct, which may be conveniently or advantage- —

ously consolidated or operated ted sce Acts :

_ 1988, ch. 413, Sec. 1).

See. 848. “Same — Power to enter into contracts.

_<. For the puryipse of carrying out the powers and

authorities granted by this Act (sections 847 to 850),

‘said Shelby: County and/or all municipal corpora-

tions -and/or other local governmental agencies. .

. located therein are expressly authorized and em-

‘\powered to enter into contract for the purpose of

affecting and carrying out any such consolidation

_ and/or joint: operation of governmental or corpo-

rate activities or functions authorized by. this Act.

-(Priv. Acts 1933, ch. 418, sec. 7m

Sec. 849. ‘Same - oo (aasiaais to be executed by

- governmental modes,

Contracts authorized by this Act (sections 847 to ac

850) shall be entered into and executed by and on

behalf of Shelby County by either its quarterly

- ‘eounty court or by its board of county-commission-

ers, with:-reference to any governmental or corporate

ao” ae

~ activities or functions operated, conducted or con- |

+ trolled by either of them; and by and‘on behalf of

municipal corporations. and/or other local govern-.

- mental agencies located ‘in said county by the legis-

lative council or other appropriate governing bodies

of such municipal corporations: and/or other local

governmental agencies. sips Acts 1933, ch. 413,

-- $ee. 3) | . |

Sec. 850. . Same — Bfovisions of contracts.

’ Any and all contracts authorized by the provisions ©

of this Act (sections 847 to 850) may be executed

in such ‘form and -with such provisions, conditions °

and limitations, and for such considerations, as may

be acceptable to the contracting parties; and’ it is

hereby expressly provided. that such contracts may

authorize the carrying on within the corporate limits

of any such municipal corporation or any govern-

mental or corporate activity or function provided

for under the terms of any such contract by or

Se through any agents, employees or other character or

agency therein agreed on, whether or not they reside.

within the corporate limits of such municipal cor- —

poration. (Priv. Acts 1933, ch. 413, sec. 4)

~

ell

reenact : : : s

. ° = oa meme —

-

.

~~

: . e

. j e °

. Bs F

’ . . L

: * a

zi J e *

‘

“

. x e

:

, . .

e .

. .

. ‘ ’ 7

. . . rs .

. >. ”

.

& ‘ “

¥

. > . . .

.

: ak es

‘ : s 4 oe 7

. .

. s e

. . . .

- . ‘> - . . e °

s ~ =

‘ 2 a

.

« .

e . ' a a

4 .

.

% .

. o

.

.

; “

2 .

ee

. . i ‘

. -

‘ °

. . Se

. . 2

.

. . Pa

. e :

= - . ’

‘ . . ps ‘

. , .

— x . % .]

.

’ .

° .

. ¥ :

m °

, 2 \ . . ‘ =

. \e 4 :

.~< . . °

6 2

- a

. «

.

“~ . . . . .

. ,

°

2 Ee . . 3 ; . a

Ss : ’ ‘

° > . °, .

‘| .

. P .

Supreme Court, US.

LIBRARY), } 2 RI DED”

* SUPSEME COURT, w nd

e

‘

IN THE *-

Supreme Court of. The United States

a ee

POP POPPENHEIMER ET AL. ey ae

PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER

4

A :

CITY. OF MEMPHIS AND SHELBY COUNTY

Santee COURT AND COMMISSIONERS

| DEFENDANT- RESPONDENT |

NO.-##68—OCTOBER TERM, 1970

PETITIONERS’ BRIEF

__IN RESPONSE TO

‘RESPONDENT'S BRIEF

W. SLATER HOLLIS

~ Counsel for Petitioners ° ces

- P.O. Box 80876 2 _ ;

Memphis, Tenn. 38111 | | .

“®*

IN THE.

Supreme Court of The United States |

pop POPPENHEIMER ET AL

PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER

e

CITY OF MEMPHIS AND SHELBY COUNTY

QUARTERLY COURT AND COMMISSIONERS |

DEF ENDANT- RESP( )NDEN T

“NQ. 17382, OCTOBER TERM, 1970

PETITIONERS’ BRIEF

: _. IN RESPONSE TO

| _RESPONDENT’S BRIEF

W. SLATER HOLLIS

“Counsel for Petitioners nai

P. O. Box. 80876 - 7

-Memphis, Tenn. 38111 ae . :

TO THE HONORABLES CHIEF JUSTICE AND

ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME

‘ COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S BRIEF

ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE OF

THE CASE AT BAR

Petitioners respectfully bring to the Court’s atten-

Pam, te

tion that Respondents cite only one case in addition

to thes® cases cited by the Tennessee Supreme Court; ’-

__nhamely, Frazer v. Carr, 210 Tenn. 565.

Respondents, however, do not state to this Court

that, in the one case cited, supra, the “Shall Not”.

Clause at issue here was not at issue there; instead, —

only the “May” Clause was at issue. The Frazier

Court was —

“Attention is at once attracted to the expres: |

sion in this Amendment, to wit, ‘The General

. Assembly may provide for . . .”” (emphasis by —

.italics by - the Tennessee ‘Roieiage Court),

Frazier v. Carr, supra, at p. 575. See also Pe- .

tition for Writ of Certiorari, at page 24.

The attempt of Respondents to “generalize” the

Frazer v. Carr decision to include, not only the “May”

- Clause at issue before it, but also the “Shall ‘Not”

Clause not at issue before it, was rejected by the |

Tennessee. Supreme Court ‘itself; which Court, the

Frazer case having been cited to it by Thewondeute,

would not and did not cite it as precedent for its

decision. See Opinion. 7

ON THE PROCEDURAL ISSUES OF

THE CASE“ATBAR >

Petitioners respectfully bring to the Court’s atten-

tion that Respondents only response here was to cite

‘sotaliahes

the Tennessee Court’s Opinions; which implicitly -

suggests, it would seem, that Respondents concur that

the profession can no longer condone the professiorial

conduct attendant to this case where rights have been

infringed ‘upon. See Exhibit A, —_— and Petition

. for Writ of Certiorari.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that a Writ of

| Certiorari i issue to review the Opinion and Decree of

the ig Court of the State of Tennessee in the

eStats,

; WILLIAM SLATER HOLLIS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE —

We hereby certify that we have this day mailed two

. eopies of this Brief to the Attorneys for all parties

to the proceedings; namely, Mr. James Manire, City

Attorney, and Mr. Brady Bartusch, Assistant City

_Attorney, City Hall; Mr. Cleve Drennon, County At- -

torney, Shelby County Bldg.; Mr. Jack Petree, City

Board of Education Attorney, and Ernest Kelly, Jr.,

Of Counsel, 900 Memphis Bank Bldg.; Mr. Lee ©

Winchester, Jr., Co. Bd. of Educ. Attorney, Suite

3200, 100 N. Main Bldg., all of Memphis, Tennessee,

and Mr. David Pack, State Attorney General, Su-

- preme Court Bldg., Nashville, Tenn., this ‘2° day

of mn: 1971.

: wv. Slater Hollis, |

— ee

- EXHIBIT A.

_THE MEMPHIS PRESS-SCIMITAR

February 6, 1971 .

™: A

Ex-Justice Clark Tells Lawyers |

«

To Clean Up Their Profession

By PAMELA REEVES

United Press internationo! stot Wrirer

HICAGO. — Former U.S. Supreme Court

Justice Tom Clark Friday criticized law-

yers and courts for failure to report the. mis-

doers in their ranks.

_.. Clark and Edward.L. Wright, president of .

the American Bar Asso-

ciation and a reghdent of

Little Rock, Ark, #vanked

adequate discipline _of

as the No.

e two participated in

a panel discussion before

state bar association pres-

idents at the. mid-year

meeting. of the ABA: The

meeting continues

through Tuesday.

Clark said only three

states — Arkansas, Michi-

gan and Wisconsin — “‘have had'the courage”

to cope with lawyer discipline adequately.

He said evailing attitud ng |

doing something S

so ae

“I HOPE I DON’T step on too many toes,”

Clark said, “‘but I think we have to change the’

Kee

whole philosophy of the bar on this subject.”

- He warned the lawyers, “If you don’t do

something about the problem, the legislatures

are going to — the public is going to.” ies .

ark was chairman of a seven-man commit-

tee which conducted a three-year study on self-

discipline in the law profession:

In a_ report released last spring and ap-

‘proved unanimously by the ABA's policy-mak-

ing House of Delegates last summer, the com- -

mittee said it had found ‘‘z lous situation

ant =]

€ report covered 36 major areas and made-

recommendations in each of them. It suggested

that public and ABA funds be used to set up

adequate disciplinary channels which would be

formed on statewide bases. :

* «- &

SUBSEQUENT TO THE REPORT a Com-

mittee on National Coordination of Disciplinary

Enforcement was formed under. the chairman-

ship of Henry Pitts, past president of the IIlinois

Bar Association. ee “ .

Pitts said his committee has found 15 states

"are not even studying the problem and appar-.

ently are not contemplating doing so. He said,

however, “On the whole, there’s a mounting

realization of the dimensions of this problem.” .

\ ‘