Is not claimed that' any mis-Topresentation of any kind was made directly to any client or court as to the character of the partnership business, nor that any wrongful act was contemplated by the partners unless the existence of the partner ship was" in itsd? wrongful, The letter-hend told the truth for, as. slated, each man in the firm was an attorney-at-law licensed to practice in all the other extraterritorial courts, Professional advice in the letters over the firm name, with each member entitled to practice in so many courts, would In no way be deceptive to anyone as to any special qualifications of the firm or member within it, any more than such a firm signature written by a specialized member, sch as a patent oF. admiralty or land law member of any one of the great and highly departmentalized firms in the United States, 'The' record contains no evidence staining the Appellee's burden of proof that ina law practice Shanghai there is any public polley Violated by a law partnership. such as here existed, Despite our searching questions ai the argument, there was suggested no greater likelihood of wrong to any litigant in the course of the legal service of either lawyer, because in a continuous partnership relationship, then in. the admittedly legal associations in the practice of taw of two such qualified men, By virtue of the comity in the extrater~ ritorial courts at' Shanghai each Tawyer, in court in litigation "and cut of' court In advice to client was legally entitled to do everything that could be done by any. lawyer rejtularly admitted to the bar of the United States Court for China, The trial Judge, but 9 fow months fon the bench In Shanghai, stated in his opinion that no. partnership between an American and. non-American has ever @xisted in China There Is nothing Inthe evidence to support such a statement and Appellee is not entitled to have it considered as supporting his burden of proof, No rule of court Is shown to have' existed prohibiting such a partnership contract nor can such fan unsupported statement establish such a rule and, retroactively, make the contract vold, The lower court refers to certain rulings of a committee of the American Bar Association, but it is obvious that the committee did not have In mind the peculiar situation Shanghai, The partnerships discussed by " the committee wore! between members of the bar of a state court and persons, unlike appellant and appellee, who were not entitled to practice for their Clients in that court, Tower court regards the ship as an entity and not amenable to its discipline for violations of professional obligations, We are unable to agree. Obviously both partners are Hable to punish. ment for contemptuous conduct in the court room and, as for wrong doing to a client. elsewhere, the client would have his redress against fappellee by forfeiture of the latter's ight to practice in the United States Court and his disbarment in his Netherlands' court. With the burden of proof on appellee, he cannot ask fo assume that the standards of professional obligations of a lawyer, fo his client are any lower in the Netherlands than in the several American states or the United States, 'oF that the courts of the Netherlands: fare any the less vigilant In exercising their discipline to maintain them. As for damage suffered by the client unprofessional conduct, the partnership would make both Inwyers Hable though but one offended, Tu the United States it is a' com. mon and recognized practice to form partnerships in which one partner ts hot admitted to practice in the} condition which another partner is a tember" of the. bar. District Columbia Iawvers, "practicing, only inthe federal courte" there, hace Tinerent states, Neither the state rinershins with lawyers. of the
lawyer is subject to. the discipline of the courts of the District, nor the Washington lawyer to courts of the state of his partner. Often the partners live and practice hundreds, {f not thousands of miles apart from tone another. The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia has held 8 partnership in which one of the] attorneve was not a member of the bar of the court in which the litfeation was to be conducted not against
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.