Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionlawyerhearingtrialtrust
jurisdiction

Related Cases

Spanos v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 364 F.2d 161, 10 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1601, 10 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1606
View Case »
Limerick v. Greenwald, 749 F.2d 97, 40 Fed.R.Serv.2d 907
View Case »
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284, 78 USLW 4235, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3989, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 211
View Case »
Traystman, Coric and Keramidas v. Hundley, 102 Conn.App. 490, 925 A.2d 1161
View Case »
Maxwell v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.3d 606, 639 P.2d 248, 180 Cal.Rptr. 177, 18 A.L.R.4th 333
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Unification of New Hampshire Bar, 109 N.H. 260, 248 A.2d 709

Facts

The New Hampshire Bar Association petitioned the court to establish a unified bar, arguing that the increasing complexity of legal practice and urbanization necessitated a more effective organization. A special committee recommended unification, which was supported by a majority vote in a referendum among bar members. The petition included a proposed Constitution and By-Laws, and the court scheduled a hearing to consider the matter.

The petition states that the New Hampshire Bar Association now provides, and for many years heretofore has provided, for the assistance of this court, as the general superintending authority over the Bar of this State, services of a quasi-public nature.

Issue

Whether the establishment of a unified bar in New Hampshire is justified and within the court's jurisdiction.

Whether the establishment of a unified bar in New Hampshire is justified and within the court's jurisdiction.

Rule

The court has the inherent power to regulate the practice of law and supervise those engaged in it, which includes the authority to establish a unified bar.

This power of the supreme court of a State or territory to integrate its bar without any specific statutory authorization or direction to do so has been upheld, to the best of our knowledge, in every jurisdiction where the issue has been raised.

Analysis

The court determined that a unified bar would enhance the administration of justice by ensuring all lawyers are subject to the same ethical standards and financial contributions, thereby improving the quality of legal services and public trust in the profession. The court found that the benefits of a unified bar, including better supervision and support for legal education, outweighed the concerns raised by opponents.

We are of the opinion that it is in the interest of the administration of justice, of the legal profession, and in the public welfare, that a unified Bar be established and tried in New Hampshire.

Conclusion

The court ordered the establishment of a unified bar for a trial period of three years, believing it to be in the best interest of the legal profession and public welfare.

We order the establishment of a unified bar for a period of three years from the effective date of the proposed Constitution and By-Laws for such organization, when adopted by the members of the New Hampshire Bar.

Who won?

The New Hampshire Bar Association prevailed in the case as the court ruled in favor of establishing a unified bar, citing the need for improved administration of justice and professional standards.

The New Hampshire Bar Association in support of its petition for unification of the Bar of this State advances, among others, the following considerations.

You must be