The More Things Change the More They Stay the Same: Mr. Tutt and the Distrust of Lawyers in the Early Twentieth Century

Introduction

"Does the lawyer of today hold as high a place and exercise as commanding influence in this country as did the lawyer of fifty years ago?"1 Over the course of the last century, the legal profession has grappled with this question and its distressing answer. At the center of the profession's concern over the image of lawyers in the twentieth century was the growing expression of public dissatisfaction with lawyers.2 Newspapers, magazines, and popular literature were the main sources for discussion about the negative image of lawyers. One of the most popular authors of legal literature during the first half of the twentieth century was Arthur Cheney Train. This article explores how Train attempted to use his writing to improve the public's perception of lawyers, and how his writing ultimately created greater dissatisfaction with modern lawyers.

From the beginning of his literary career, Arthur Train wrote stories that revealed the problems that prevented lawyers from attaining the public's respect. Over the years, Train began to shape an image of an ideal version of the legal profession and spent the latter portion of his writing career elaborating and reinforcing this image.3 Although Train initially anticipated his books to be read exclusively by lawyers, his writing was widely embraced by the public as it nourished the public's desire for higher moral and ethical standards for lawyers. The public became especially endeared to Train's most famous character, Ephraim Tutt, who resembled the mythical nineteenth-century country lawyer.4 The popularity of this nostalgic character created a dilemma for twentieth-century lawyers, who were trying to modernize their legal practices to adjust to recent change, yet were plagued by Tutt and his representation of an idealized past.5 One way in which the legal profession responded to this dilemma was through the implementation and revision of ethical regulations, which were supposed to bridge the gap between the esteem for the mythical legal past and the growing disrepute of lawyers in the twentieth century.6 Arthur Train's writing acted as an intermediary be-tween the public and the legal profession, and was integral in fostering discussion on the improvement of the legal profession.

From approximately 1870 through the 1920s, America experienced tremendous change that both transformed the country and what was required of the legal profession. Stalemate seemed inevitable as the legal profession felt pressure to modernize, yet the popularity of the image of an idealized legal past rallied against change. While the "serpents of industrialization, urbanization and immigration" transformed America, the legal profession tended to "drink[ ] so deeply from the cup of nostalgia" that it "impaired [its] ability to cope with social change."7 Tutt existed in a nostalgic landscape and was very popular for doing so. However, his popularity8 was problematic as Tutt fortified the growing tension between the allure of an ideal, romanticized past, and the need for the profession to modernize to remain functional.

Despite the appeal of the past, the legal profession slowly yielded to change. One of the most glaring examples of such change was the development of urban law firms that began to specialize in a relatively new area-corporate law. Although the number of corporate firms originally remained small, "their power-economically and professionally- was considerable."9 The corporate bar posed a new and tempting option for law school graduates at the turn of the twentieth century, and many "[y]oung lawyers responded with alacrity to the challenge and income that awaited them in metropolitan corporate practice."10 Corporate law firms soon became the public's scapegoat for their discontent with lawyers and the growing problem of the maldistribution of justice; for corporate firms directed their attention to the rising commercial power of big business and corporations, not to the needs of the under-privileged or the public.11 On the whole, the public became frustrated as many people viewed lawyers as catering to the interests of big business and money-making, while casting aside their general responsibility to the public.12 In the face of these changes, the public took comfort in images that reinforced and reminded them of the stability, homogeneity, and tranquility associated with the dissipating rural past.13 In this respect, the image of the nineteenth-century country lawyer was enormously appealing to the public, but was an impractical standard to which the legal profession was held in the twentieth century. The public distrusted and loathed corporate lawyers who "[we]re not looked upon as were the lawyers of fifty years ago, as men whose eminent talents are at the service of any or every citizen who may desire to...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here