University of Virginia Library

Honor Court Allows
Outside Attorneys

By Donn Kessler
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

In an attempt to review and codify its
trial procedure, the Honor Committee
voted Monday to allow non-student
professional attorneys to advise students
during honor trials.

Dave Morris, Chairman of the Honor
Committee, explained yesterday that the
decision to allow this professional advice
"was made by the committee in the belief
that it would increase the fairness of the
trial procedure and would add to the legal
defense of the honor system."

Non-student Advisors

Mr. Morris stated that the decision to
allow non-student advisors had been
originally made by last year's honor committee
in the spring of 1970 on a trial basis.

He said that the decision had not been made
permanent because of the fear by the
committee that lawyers from outside the
student body might "tend to hamper the
system."

"Lawyers have already sat in during the
trials," Mr. Morris continued, "and they have
co-operated with the committee and have not
added any burden to the system." Therefore,
he explained, the committee decided to ratify
the decision made last spring.

Mr. Morris added that although the lawyers
have been allowed to advise both defendants
and plaintiffs during the trials, the lawyers
could not speak out in the trial

'Good Advocacy'

The reason for this rule, he explained, was
that a lawyer not familiar with the Honor
System and its spirit might not be able to
"provide good oral advocacy" before the honor
committee.

Before last spring, students could only have
other students, whether they were members of
the bar or not, represent and advise them
during a trial.

The rationale for this limitation was both
that outside lawyers were not familiar with the
system and that it might create an imbalance in
the procedure if one student could afford
professional advice and another could not.

No Imbalance

According to Mr. Morris, no imbalance has
yet been encountered between the two sides of
a case when non-student professional lawyers
were present.

Mr. Morris also said the strength of the
procedure was affirmed by the fact that none
of the lawyers present at a trial to date found
any defects gross enough to warrant a court
challenge.

He added, however, that a few of the
lawyers have had suggestions for improvement
in trial procedures.

Mr. Morris stated that the compilation and
review of the trial procedures of the Honor
Committee would be completed within the
next few weeks. He said that other procedural
changes may be made by the committee during
that review.