receivers, though often lawyers themselves, retain other lawyers as their attorneys, for the purpose of being able to submit to the court a big bill of expense. Judges, being friends of the receivers, ordinarily allow the bills to the great detriment of the estates under the receivership. Estates controlled and managed by receivers appointed by the court as a mere matter of friendship, seldom bring in enough to pay the exorbitant fees and charges. Usually the estates are wasted through neglect and extravagant expenditures. Receivers, as court officers, ought to be appointed according to merit as ascertained by a civil service examination, and their compensation ought to be regulated according to the amount saved to the estate as shown by their accounts, and not according to the magnitude of the estate entrusted to them and the extravagant expenses incurred.

Sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and marshals have important duties to perform in the administration of justice. For this reason these important offices ought not to be given away as a reward for political servility, but they ought to be accessible only to those that have proven their competency and fitness by a rigid examination.

Likewise, Notaries Public and Commissioners of Deeds, who are quasi-judicial officers, ought to be subjected to some test to show their ability. It is strange, that the only requirement for these important offices is citizenship, and even the ability to read and write is not a prerequisite. One stroke of the pen by a Notary or Commissioner may mean

the transfer of property worth millions, yet no qualification whatever is prescribed by law for the appointment of Notaries and Commissioners of Deeds.

Let the motto in filling all offices connected with the administration of justice be "Merit, not favoritism."

In addition to the requirements of certain qualifications, it should be the duty of the judiciary to give reasons by an opinion for every decision. As every decision necessarily is based on some reason, why should not a judge be required to state it? Particularly now-a-days, when every judge is furnished with an expert stenographer, why shall he not dictate an opinion? Many appeals would never be taken, if an opinion were given. The higher court also would at once grasp the theory on which the decision of the lower court was based, and could see at a glance whether it was right or wrong. Lawyers and litigants would not grope in the dark. They would know the reason for the conclusion of the lower court and would either reconcile themselves to the decision, or would advance arguments to rebut the reasoning of the court. Very often a wrong decision is upheld by the Appellate Court for lack of data as to how the lower court reached the conclusion

To illustrate: A, an employee of B, sues B for alleged injuries sustained by him through the negligence of C, B's superintendent. The trial justice has to decide the following questions: 1. Was A injured? 2. If yes, was C negligent? 3. If C was negligent was A free from contributory negligence? If all

these are found in favor of A, then the legal question arises: Is B liable for the negligent acts of C? Suppose the court renders judgment for the defendant, and as usual, without an opinion. Then the question arises what was the ground for the court's decision? It is possible that the court found all in favor of A, but it held as a matter of law that B is not liable for the negligent acts of C. If the lower court would so state in an opinion, then the higher court would have reversed it, because while an employer is not liable to an employee for injuries caused by a fellow employee, he is liable for the acts of his superintendent, who, in law, is not a fellow employee. But the judgment will not be reversed, because the higher court will infer that the decision was based on the fact that the lower court did not find in favor of A on any of the other questions involved in the controversy, which other questions are purely matters of fact, and the judge had the right to find either way, and if a court's decision can be upheld by any inference, it will not be disturbed. On the other hand, it is possible that the lower court found in favor of the defendant because it thought that C was not negligent. Now it is possible that the evidence conclusively proved that C was negligent and the court was positively wrong in reaching such an erroneous finding, but the judgment will not be disturbed if there was any doubt as to freedom of contributory negligence which, again, the lower court had the right to find either way it pleased.

Every decision ought to contain findings of fact

and conclusions of law, so that it could be seen at a glance why the court decided in favor of one and against the other. If judges were required to give an opinion for their rulings, they would have been more careful and many an injustice avoided.

Many lawyers become attached to some of their clients and a strong feeling of friendship springs up. While this is but human, it is impractical. Very seldom such friendship is mutual and reciprocal. In most cases the clients will abuse it, and the lawyer will lose both his clients and his friends. Better be aloof from them. Do your work honestly and get paid fairly, and don't make allowances for friendship. If you do anything for friendship, do it for nothing. Don't do things by halves.

Sometimes one may come to your office with a complaint against a good client of yours and you cannot afford to take the case against your client. Be frank with him and tell him so. Don't pretend to take his case for the purpose of helping your client. It is unprofessional, unethical and very often a crime. Besides that, in nine times out of ten, your client will not appreciate it and will not pay you, and you will lose the compensation and appreciation you expected together with your client.

Try to get your fee before you render your services, or at the latest immediately after your services are over. If you wait, you will lose both your client and your fee.

Don't put too much faith in clients' promises. They will promise you golden mountains as long as they need you. When your services are over, you will be forgotten, if you don't insist on the promises being kept; if you do insist, you will not only realize