Curtis Statement on Court Lying Mums Law Professors

An alumnus' article in the Stanford Law Review has caused dissension in Boston's none too quiet legal world, but Law School professors won't enter the altercation until "we've studied the whole situation."

Charles P. Curtis '13 wrote, "I do not see why we should not come out roundly and say that one of the functions of a lawyer is to lie for his client." Curtis is associated with Choate, Hall and Stewart, a Boston law firm.

The Boston Bar Association Council, of which Mr. Curtis is a member, is now investigating the article.

Several law professors contacted yesterday declined to comment on the investigation until they had read the article in question, "The Ethics of Advocacy." They felt yesterday's story on the situa- tion in the Boston Herald was "inadequate."

Lon L. Fuller, professor of Jurisprudence, felt that "there is no occasion at all to doubt Mr. Curtis's integrity." Fuller had not yet read the original article, but commented that "I think they've taken some isolated sentences out of context."

Massachusetts Bar Association head Samuel P. Sears '17 was not so moderate in his reactions. "I was stunned when I read in the Herald that a gentleman and lawyer of Mr. Charles P. Curtis's standing had written an article in which he said "one of the functions of a lawyer is to lie for his client," Sears said.

"That statement is so contrary to every concept of legal ethics as I read and understand them. . . Either Mr. Curtis' views are in conflict with those of every decent member of the legal profession, or he has expressed them in a manner that can only be described as inordinately stupid."

Curtis declined to comment on the investigation