LAY ENCROACHMENTS ON THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Gambrell, E. Smythe
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by2
- 1951Gardner v. Conway Minn.
- 1939Blair v. Motor Carriers Service Bureau, Inc. Phila. Cty. C.P.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
The holding of the Minnesota supreme court in the Otterness case that: "Neither a corporation nor a layman, not admitted to practise, can practise law, nor indirectly practise law by hiring a licensed attorney to practise law for others for the benefit or profit of such hirer" is one of many recent judicial pronouncements in defense of the legal profession. These decisions may prompt many individuals to ask why there should be a professional monopoly in the practise of law. Governmental restraint against free and unregulated practise of law is not for the purpose of advancing the individual interests of the lawyers, but for the protection of the public. Although in certain instances members have been regarded as having a property interest in their profession, non-members are denied the privilege of practising only for the common good.