1 Jerold S. Auerbach, Unequal Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

2 For information on the development and organization of the AMA, see Oliver Garceau, The Political Life of the American Medical Association (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1941).Google Scholar

3 Auerbach, supra note 1, at 211.Google Scholar

4 Richard A. Watson & Rondal G. Downing, The Politics of the Bench and the Bar: Judicial Selection Under the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan 20–32 (New York: John Wiley & Sons: 1969).Google Scholar

5 The discussion of the National Lawyers Guild that follows relies heavily on Auerbach, supra note 1, at 199–204 and 234–37.Google Scholar

6 Morris Ernst to President Roosevelt, quoted by Auerbach, supra note 1, at 199.Google Scholar

7 In 1950 the House Un-American Activities Committee issued a report denouncing the Guild as “the foremost legal bulwark of the Communist Party,” and in 1953 Attorney-General Herbert Brownell attacked the Guild as “the legal mouthpiece of the Communist Party.” Auerbach, supra note 1, at 352 nn.7–9.Google Scholar

8 F. Raymond Marks, The Lawyer, The Public, and Professional Responsibility 194 (Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1972).Google Scholar

9 Id.Google Scholar

10 There were suggestions that representatives of the counter-bar organizations should meet regularly, but nothing came of them.Google Scholar

11 Raymond Marks notes that the term “Council of Lawyers” seems to have replaced “Association” as a generic description. He suggests that it may reflect a conscious avoidance of the connotations of “association” or “guild.” Marks, supra note 8, at 194 n.14.Google Scholar

12 Information received from Larry Mirel, former Executive Director of the Washington Council of Lawyers. Interview, July 13, 1979.Google Scholar

13 Marks, supra note 8, at 195.Google Scholar

14 Robert Perucci, In the Service of Man: Radical Movements in the Professions, Sociological Review Monograph no. 20, at 179 (University of Keele, 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Philip B. Kurland, The Law Men of La Mancha 7 (Address given at the Second Annual Meeting of the Chicago Council of Lawyers, Chicago, Oct. 7, 1970).Google Scholar

16 See Marks, supra note 8, and Earl Johnson, Jr., Justice and Reform: The Formative Years of the OEO Legal Services Program (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1974).Google Scholar

17 Associate Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., The Responsibilities of the Legal Profession, in Arthur E. Sutherland, ed., The Path of the Law from 1967, at 89, 91 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Law School, 1968) (footnote omitted).Google Scholar

18 Id. at 92.Google Scholar

19 Marks, supra note 8, at 202.Google Scholar

20 CBA Project Files. Unless there is a strong intellectual reason for attribution, names will be omitted and confidentiality of sources will be maintained throughout this paper.Google Scholar

21 Interview, May 14, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Kurland, supra note 15, at 7.Google Scholar

23 CBA Project Files.Google Scholar

24 Terence C. Halliday & Charles L. Cappell, Indicators of Democracy in Professional Associations: Elite Recruitment, Turnover, and Decision Making in a Metropolitan Bar Association, in a forthcoming issue of A.B.F. Res. J.Google Scholar

25 Id.Google Scholar

26 CBA Project Files.Google Scholar

27 For a discussion of the court strategies of the ACLU and the NAACP see Robert L. Rabin, Lawyers for Social Change: Perspectives on Public Interest Law, 28 Stan. L. Rev. 207, 210–24, reprinted in Research Contributions of the American Bar Foundation No. 1 (Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1976).Google Scholar

28 Neil J. Smelser, Theory of Collective Behavior 16–17 (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962).Google Scholar

29 James Q. Wilson, Political Organizations 204 (New York: Basic Books, 1973).Google Scholar

30 Of the signers, Robert M. Berger, Joseph V. Karaganis, and David S. Tatel were of Cie class of 1966, while Neil K. Komesar, Judson H. Miner, and Philip W. Moore were of the class of 1967. In addition, Michael L. Shakman, who served on the first board, and George A. Ranney, Jr., a charter member of the Council and later a member of the board, were also of the class of 1966.Google Scholar

31 Robert W. Bennett '65, Jerald P. Esrick '66, Philip Ginsberg '64, Joel F. Henning '64. Robert C. Howard '67, the first vice president of the Council, and John C. Christie, Jr. '62 and John R. Schmidt '67, later presidents, were also recent graduates of Harvard Law School.Google Scholar

32 Robert Bennett, Judson Miner, Philip Moore, and John Schmidt were also on the Lawyers Action Committee to End the War.Google Scholar

33 Neil Komesar and David Tatel.Google Scholar

34 Robert Howard and Michael Shakman.Google Scholar

35 Judson H. Miner, An Introduction to the Chicago Council of Lawyers 3 (informational paper with application form, n.d. [1970]).Google Scholar

36 See Associate Justice Brennan's remarks referred to in note 17 supra.Google Scholar

37 Robert H. Salisbury, An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups, 13 Midwest J. Pol. Sci. 1, 12 (1969).Google Scholar

38 Robert Bennett and Thomas L. Eovaldi are now professors of law at Northwestern University; David Tatel is Director of the Office for Civil Rights in HEW; Joel Henning is Assistant Executive Director of the Division of Communications and Education at the ABA; Robert Berger is a partner with Mayer, Brown & Platt; Karaganis and Miner both have their own firms (Karaganis & Gail, Ltd., and Davis, Miner & Barnhill); Moore is of counsel to Price, Grove, Engelberg & Fried, P.C. (Washington, D.C.) and also has an individual practice (in Easton, Maryland).Google Scholar

39 For example, Judge Miner had been good friends with Albert E. Jenner, senior partner in Jenner & Block and a notable figure on the Chicago legal scene; consequently, Miner was able to gain Jenner's support for the Council soon after its formation.Google Scholar

40 Minutes, Meetings of the Board of Governors, Chicago Council of Lawyers, Mar. 8, 1971. It was also suggested at the same meeting that Miner should step down as president since the Council was becoming too closely identified with him-the classic problem of the organizational entrepreneur. In any event, following the completion of his two-year term as president in October 1971, Miner himself saw the need to withdraw from representing the Council so that it could develop a public identity independent of him.Google Scholar

41 Since the early days of the Council, Miner has established a thriving small practice serving largely personal clients rather than corporate, and with a higher proportion of minorities and blue-collar workers represented. It should be noted that the recognition Miner gained was by no means all positive. With his assertive style he certainly alienated the leaders of the CBA.Google Scholar

42 For the origins of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, see George Martin, Causes and Conflicts: The Centennial History of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York 1870–1970 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1970). Karaganis was not the only one who saw the Association of the Bar of the City of New York as a model; so too did Dallin H. Oaks, then Professor of Law at the University of Chicago and Executive Director of the American Bar Foundation, who suggested at the first organizational meeting that the new group call itself the Association of the Bar of the City of Chicago, thus not only recalling its New York model but also when written in acronymic fashion (ABC) making the exact reverse of the CBA.Google Scholar

43 Interview, May 14, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 The differences between Karaganis and Miner were important at the time. Strong ideological and personal feelings were involved. Several of the other founders commented that the Council would have been a quite different organization had Karaganis won the election.Google Scholar

45 Alex Elson and Calvin P. Sawyier had both served on the Board of Managers of the CBA.Google Scholar

46 Miner was also able to persuade Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit of the U. S. Court of Appeals Luther M. Swygert to speak at the Council's second annual meeting in October of 1971. Judge Swygert's willingness to identify with the Council, and the attendance of many of his fellow judges, certainly added to the legitimacy of the new organization. See Miner, Remarks-Third Annual Meeting–Chicago Council of Lawyers (n.d. [1971]).Google Scholar

47 The difference between Miner's assertive style and the more cautious approach of sympathetic older lawyers can be seen in the exchange between Miner and Milton I. Shadur as to whether the Council should sponsor a planned seminar on extrajudicial comment. Shadur felt that Council sponsorship would mean the seminar would lose credibility and suggested law school sponsorship to remove the discussion from an atmosphere of partisanship. Miner strongly disagreed, stating that such problems “should be forthrightly confronted by lawyers with the help of academicians and not vice versa.” Miner, Memorandum to Symposium Participants, Apr. 15, 1970.Google Scholar

48 Wilson. supra note 29, at 208.Google Scholar

49 Several CBA leaders regarded the Council and its early leaders as “irresponsible.” CBA Project Files.Google Scholar

50 Council leaders had good relations with the press; indeed, some of them had personal contacts with media figures such as Walter Jacobson of Chicago's Channel 2.Google Scholar

51 The figures are from Miner, Introduction, supra note 35, at 1, and Chicago Council of Lawyers newsletter, Aug. 18, 1969, at 1.Google Scholar

52 The Council's first press conference was with reference to the Chicago Conspiracy Trial and in response to criticisms by the leaders of the CBA and ISBA of the behavior of the defendants and defendants' counsel. Chicago Council of Lawyers newsletter, Mar. 31, 1970.Google Scholar

53 In re Oliver (452 F.2d 111 (7th Cir. 1971)) became something of a cause célè;bre in Chicago legal circles with the Council strongly defending the profession's freedom of expression and directly challenging the Illinois district court on the matter.Google Scholar

54 In 1975 the Council won the case on appeal when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overruled on constitutional grounds the rules adopted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which restricted public comment by lawyers on pending criminal and civil cases. Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242 (1975), discussed in Chicago Council of Lawyers newsletters, Oct. 21, 1970, at 3–4, and Aug. 18, 1975, at 1.Google Scholar

55 For an outline of the scandals involving the lower court jurists and the development of Solfisburg and Klingbiel affair, see Herman Kogan, The First Century: The Chicago Bar Assotion, 1874–1974, at 263–64 (Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1974).Google Scholar

56 Chicago Council of Lawyers, A Report to the Citizens of Cook County by the Chicago Co cil of Lawyers: The Judicial Candidates in the November 1970 Election 2 (unpublished report, 19, 1970) (underlining deleted).Google Scholar

57 Id. at 7.Google Scholar

58 The mass elevation of magistrates was provided for in the “Transition Schedule” (§ 9) of new Illinois Constitution. However, as magistrates were appointed by the circuit court judge: serve “at their pleasure,” the Illinois circuit court could discharge any magistrate deemed unfit p to July 1, 1971, the date on which all the magistrates would become associate judges of the cir court. See A Report to the Citizens, supra note 56. For comments on the consequences of the nev linois Constitution, see Rubin G. Cohn, The Illinois Judicial Department–Changes Effected Constitution of 1970, 1971 U. Ill. L.F. 355, 365–67 (1971).Google Scholar

59 A Report by the Chicago Council of Lawyers: The 107 Cook County Magistrates Who Scheduled to Become Associate Judges of the Circuit Court on July 1, 1971, at 1, 18, 21, 22 (i [June 1971]). The credibility of this report was enhanced when a number of Chicago lawyers, m of whom were not members of the Council, petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to stay the n elevation of the magistrates. Although the petition was organized by Miner, it was headed by All Jenner and included the names of other prominent Chicago lawyers.Google Scholar

60 Report to the Board of Governors on the Council's Judicial Evaluation Procedures (internal memorandum, n.d. [1974]). This report calls for a change in strategy on the part of the Council, from making blanket condemnations of the Illinois bench “to pragmatic efforts to improve the judiciary by locating and promoting competent persons and removing those who are totally unqualified.”Google Scholar

61 CBA Project Files. It should be noted that the Chief Judge of the Cook County Circuit Court, John S. Boyle, regularly advised Cook County Circuit Court judges and associate judges not to cooperate with the Council's evaluations. See Report to the Citizens, supra note 56, and Report on 107 Cook County Magistrates, supra note 59.Google Scholar

62 Miner, Remarks, supra note 46, at 7.Google Scholar

63 Gerhard Casper replaced Kurland on the Council's board; he was followed by Geoffrey R. Stone and H. Douglas Laycock, younger members of the faculty.Google Scholar

64 In addition to those already mentioned, other members of the faculty at Northwestern University's School of Law have supported the Council and been involved in its activities from time to time, including John P. Heinz and Francis O. Spalding.Google Scholar

65 This difficulty was recognized by the Council's leaders. In an early memorandum, Michael Shakman discussed whether the Council was simply duplicating the ACLU. Michael L. Shakman to William Brackett, Jerry Esrick, Judson Miner, Aug. 25, 1970.Google Scholar

66 Leaders of the CBA frequently refer to the Council in such a way, not as a rival or competing bar association but as a special group within the profession representing a special viewpoint. CBA Project Files.Google Scholar

67 Chicago Council of Lawyers newsletter, Mar. 31, 1970.Google Scholar

68 Minutes, Board of Governors, Apr. 20, 1970.Google Scholar

69 Minutes, Board of Governors, Chicago Council of Lawyers, Jan. 25, 1972. Robert Bennett pointed out that the Council's sponsorship of a trip to London had been disastrous, receiving little support from members.Google Scholar

70 For information on the New York Council of Law Associates, see Neal Johnston, “The Council of New York Law Associates”-What Is It? 25 Rec. Ass'n B. City N.Y. 312 (1970), and Eric Hass, The Council of the Concerned, 1 Juris Doctor 20 (Apr. 1971).Google Scholar

71 Hass, supra note 70, at 20.Google Scholar

72 Miner, Remarks, supra note 46, at 6, 10.Google Scholar

73 Hass, supra note 70, at 20.Google Scholar

74 Minutes, Board of Governors, Chicago Council of Lawyers, Jan. 25, 1972.Google Scholar

75 Miner to Joseph D. Wolger, Sept. 24, 1969.Google Scholar

76 Miner to David Parsons, Aug. 13, 1969. See also Robert Bennett, Memorandum to Officers and Members of the Board of the Chicago Council of Lawyers 2 (n.d.).Google Scholar

77 Robert Bennett, in a memorandum, supra note 76, at I, pointed to the problems the CBA faces as a large organization: “To keep its membership happy, the CBA must avoid offending significant groups among its members.” Bennett went on to express the hope that the Council would al-ways be a minority bar association and thus avoid any like development.Google Scholar

78 In 1975 Council President John Schmidt noted that the size of the Council had remained relatively constant for the past two years and asked for increased effort to solicit new members: “we need more members to expand our activities, establish a strong financial base, and give added public impact to our actions.” Chicago Council of Lawyers newsletter, May 19, 1975.Google Scholar

79 There have been recurrent efforts to place the Council on a more secure financial basis. In 1971 a finance committee was established to consider various alternatives for raising money and soon after a special category for sustaining members was introduced. Currently the executive director is attempting to get law firms to contribute to the support of the Council in an indirect way de-spite the earlier opposition to such a move. Her success will provide some indication of how well accepted the Council has become in the legal community.Google Scholar

80 Wilson, supra note 29, at 210. See also Mancur Olson, Jr., The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and The Theory of Groups (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965) and Salisbury, supra note 37.Google Scholar

81 Henning, Interview, Apr. 5, 1976.Google Scholar

82 For a study of the reasons for the success or failure of protest groups, see William Gamson, The Strategy of Social Protest (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1975).Google Scholar

83 Bennett, Memorandum, supra note 76.Google Scholar

84 In the July 30, 1970, newsletter (p. 3), Miner reports that the Daily Law Bulletin was refusing to give any coverage to the Council. Commenting that the Council's statements and activities should be covered as well as those of the older, established bar associations, Miner urged members to write to the editor of the Bulletin to protest such discrimination.Google Scholar

85 Rabin, supra note 27, at 220.Google Scholar

86 CBA Project Files.Google Scholar

87 Robert Bennett, second president of the Council, claimed that improvement of the quality of the judiciary became “the central organizing goal” of the Council. The Council's activities in this area were the reason for many lawyers joining. Interview, May 4, 1976.Google Scholar

88 Philip Selznick, Law, Society, and Industrial Justice 44–45, with Philippe Nonet and Howard M. Vollmer (New York: Russell Sage, 1969).Google Scholar

89 For a full description of the design and implementation of the Survey of the Chicago Bar, see John P. Heinz, Edward O. Laumann, Charles L. Cappell, Terence C. Halliday, & Michael H. Schaalman, Diversity, Representation, and Leadership in an Urban Bar: A First Report on a Survey of the Chicago Bar, 1976 A.B.F. Res. J. 717 (hereinafter cited as Report on Chicago Bar Survey; the survey alone cited as Chicago Bar Survey). It is sufficient to note here that the survey consisted of personal interviews with a random sample of 777 lawyers practicing in Chicago. The sample appears to be a reasonably representative cross section of the population, although nonmembers of the Chicago Bar Association and solo practitioners may be slightly underenumerated.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90 Id. at 746.Google Scholar

91 For a discussion of the importance of being able to demonstrate some forward movement, see Mayer N. Zald & Roberta Ash, Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change, 44 Social Forces 327 (1965–66).Google Scholar

92 In September of 1970 John Paul Stevens and Frank J. McGarr, two of the five potential nominees for federal judicial positions who were evaluated by the Council's Subcommittee on Judicial Nominees, were recommended by the Council in a report to U.S. Senators Percy and Smith; in October their nominations were accepted by the Senate as they were named, respectively, to federal circuit and district judgeships. Discussed in Chicago Council of Lawyers newsletter, Oct. 21, 1970, at 5.Google Scholar

93 There was regularly pressure from within the organization on the Council to get involved in is-sues not related so clearly to the legal system. In 1970 the Council's board was urged to convene a special meeting of the members to consider a resolution opposing the Vietnam War. The board decided not to hold such a meeting but did agree to support a symposium on the war called by the Lawyers Action Committee to End the War. Minutes, Board of Governors, May 25, 1970. In 1973 a member of the Council's board advocated Council action in areas relating to welfare and public aid, including Council support for relaxing public aid eligibility standards, revisions of the Illinois Public Aid Code, and the expansion of public knowledge of welfare benefits. Memorandum, Michael F. Lefkow to Arnold Kanter (n.d. [1973]). The Council did not take on all these public policy issues but it did make public statements critical of Governor Walker's “massive crackdown on welfare cheaters,” and it testified at public hearings called to consider the proposed shift to a “flat grant” method of making payments under which persons on welfare would receive set amounts based on family size, away from the present system of allowances for special needs. Chicago Council of Lawyers newsletter, Oct. 10, 1973.Google Scholar

94 Steven N. Klein, Secretary of the Council in 1970, accused the Council of becoming that when he resigned from his office in May 1971. Steven N. Klein to Judson H. Miner, May 18, 1971.Google Scholar

95 At the outset of the Council, Miner expressed some concern as to whether the Council would qualify for tax exempt status “in view of the quasi-political nature of many of the Council's pro-posed activities.” Minutes, Board of Governors, Chicago Council of Lawyers, Nov. 10, 1969.Google Scholar

96 For a discussion of the effect of the politicization of the Guild see Auerbach, supra note 1, at 199–204.Google Scholar

97 As Miner put it: “we were obsessed with democracy.” Interview, May 14, 1976.Google Scholar

98 Judson H. Miner, Chicago Council of Lawyers newsletter, July 30, 1970.Google Scholar

99 For the suggestion of establishing a nominating committee, see Shakman memorandum, supra note 65; for president-elect, see Minutes, Sept. 4, 1974; for board control over committees, see Minutes, Nov. 6, 1974.Google Scholar

100 “It was once charged rather frequently that the Council was run by a small clique. We worried about this at past soul-searching sessions.” Bennett, Memorandum, supra note 76, at 4.Google Scholar

101 Gamson, supra note 82.Google Scholar

102 Joel F. Handler, Ellen Jane Hollingsworth, & Howard S. Erlanger, Lawyers and the Pursuit of Legal Rights 6 (New York: Academic Press, 1978).Google Scholar

103 Minutes, Nov. 24, 1969.Google Scholar

104 For a more detailed discussion of the level of participation in voluntary associations see David L. Sills, Voluntary Associations: II Sociological Aspects, in David L. Sills, ed., 16 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 362 (n.p.: Crowell Collier & Macmillan Inc., 1968), and Constance Smith & Anne Freedman, Voluntary Associations (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972).Google Scholar

105 Salisbury develops the category of “expressive” group from the concept of “expressive” social actions used by the sociologist Peter M. Blau in Exchange and Power in Social Life (New York: J. Wiley, 1964). An expressive group provides a mechanism for the expression of values such as affirmation of free speech of civil rights or opposition to war or poverty, or opposition to abortion on demand, and so on. Salisbury, supra note 37, at 16, 19.Google Scholar

106 Clearly there are some advantages to being president of the Council: the president receives wide exposure in the legal community through the media and through his representation of the Council on various occasions.Google Scholar

107 Olson, supra note 80, at 132, ch. VI.Google Scholar

108 Salisbury, supra note 37, at 15–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

109 Howard Becker, Outsiders 149 (New York: Free Press, 1963).Google Scholar

110 The classification of law schools into elite, prestige, regional, and local is the one developed by Heinz, Laumann, Cappell, Halliday, & Schaalman for their 1976 report on the Chicago bar, supra note 89, at 726 n.5. The elite classification was based on two reports by Peter M. Blau and Rebecca Zames Margulies reporting the rankings of law schools by law school deans: The Pecking Order of the Elite: America's Leading Professional Schools, 5 Change 211 (Nov. 1973) and A Research Replication: The Reputations of American Professional Schools, 6 Change 42 (Winter 1974–75). Additional categories were developed on the basis of informed local reputation. The categories and schools are: Google Scholar

The only law schools listed in these categories are those whose graduates appeared in the Chicago sample in any number.Google Scholar

111 Edward O. Laumann & John P. Heinz, Specialization and Prestige in the Legal Profession: The Structure of Deference, 1977 A.B.F. Res. J. 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

112 Id. at 202–3.Google Scholar

113 Miner, supra note 35.Google Scholar

114 Auerbach, supra note 1, especially chs. 1–5.Google Scholar

115 See the Appendix for data on the ethnicity and religious affiliation of Council members. “Nonreligious lawyers” refers to those lawyers who specified no religious affiliation in response to the questions: “Do you have a religious preference? That is, are you either Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, or something else?”Google Scholar

116 Judson H. Miner, Chicago Council of Lawyers newsletter, Aug. 18, 1969.Google Scholar

117 Chicago Council of Lawyers, Report on Code of Profesional Responsibility, Feb. 1972.Google Scholar

118 Id.Google Scholar

119 Information received from Larry Mirel, former Executive Director of the Washington Council of Lawyers.Google Scholar

120 Barbara Schact, Executive Director of the New York Council of Lawyers, Interview, Aug. 1978.Google Scholar

121 Report on Chicago Bar Survey, supra note 89, at 770–71.Google Scholar

122 Terence C. Halliday, Parameters of Professional Influence: Policies and Politics of the Chicago Bar Association, 1945–70, at 338–49, 433–50 (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1979).Google Scholar

123 Terence C. Halliday & Michael J. Powell, Crime, Taxation, and Racism: Legal Associations and the Organizational Mediation of Social Change 30–31 (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, Aug. 1977).Google Scholar

124 Report on Chicago Bar Survey, supra note 89, at 769.Google Scholar

125 For example, the Council directly confronted the Illinois Federal District Court on its rules relating to extra judicial comment.Google Scholar

126 In comparing the role of a young group such as the Council with that of the CBA, a member of the CBA's board noted that the Council “can make statements that, in a sense, you might call irresponsible, whereas the Bar Association cannot do that.” CBA Project Files.Google Scholar

127 Report on Chicago Bar Survey, supra note 89, at 771.Google Scholar

128 See Auerbach, supra note 1.Google Scholar

129 Report of the Chicago Council of Lawyers on No Fault Insurance (n.d.).Google Scholar

130 Garceau, supra note 2.Google Scholar

131 A. M. Carr-Saunders & P. A. Wilson, The Professions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933).Google Scholar

132 T. H. Marshall, The Recent History of Professionalism in Relation to Social Structure and Social Policy, 5 Canadian J. Eco. & Pol. Sci. 325 (1939).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

133 Talcott Parsons, The Social System (New York: Free Press, 1951).Google Scholar

134 W. J. Goode, Community Within a Community: The Profession, 22 Am. Soc. Rev. 194 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

135 Bernard Barber, Some Problems in the Sociology of the Professions, 92 Daedalus 669 (1963).Google Scholar

136 Goode, supra note 134.Google Scholar