Bar Ass'n v. District Title Insurance

Per Curiam. Henderson, J., filed the following opinion: This appeal from the dismissal of a bill for declaratory decree and injunction, without leave to amend, raises the simple question whether a County Bar Association has standing to sue in its corporate capacity to enjoin the alleged ⁴⁷⁶ practice of law by other corporations. We advanced the case for argument and handed down a per curiam order, at the request of all parties, affirming the chancellor’s decree. We now state the reasons for our action.

Maryland Rule 203 provides in effect that a suit shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. The Bar Association of Montgomery County is incorporated as a private, non-stock, non-profit corporation organized for the general purpose of promoting the best interests, of the legal profession and the administration of justice in Montgomery County and is dependent upon the dues of its members. It seems clear that it has no interest, apart from the interests of its members, in policing the practice of law, which, under Code (1957), Art. 10, sec. 1, is limited to individuals admitted to the bar. There is no express statutory authority to prosecute suits of the nature now involved but only to file charges and conduct proceedings against members of the bar as directed by, or as if directed by, the courts under sections 12 and 13 of the Article.

See Braverman v. Bar Ass’n of Balto., 209 Md. 328, 336 , cert. denied, 352 U. S. 830 . It is conceded that the authority therein granted does not extend to or include a proceeding like the present. It has been repeatedly held in Maryland that other incorporated professional, vocational, and class associations, seeking to restrain the unlawful practice of their particular profession or vocation, or to prevent injury to the class interest, have no standing to sue. See Dvorine v. Castelberg Jewelry Corp., 170 Md. 661 ; Crider v. Cullen, 191 Md. 723 ; Md. Naturopathic Ass’n v. Kloman, 191 Md. 626 ; Windsor Hills Improvement Ass’n v. Mayor & C. C. of Balto., 195 Md. 383 ; Beckett v. Housing Authority of Balto., 198 Md. 71 ; Ass’n of Independent Taxi Oprs. v. Yellow Cab Co., 198 Md. 181 ; Southland Hills Improvement Ass’n of Balto.

County, Inc. v. Raine, 220 Md. 213 ; Sullivan v. Northwest Garage, Inc., 223 Md. 544 . See also Miller, Equity Procedure, § 98. In the absence of statutory authority we see no basis for holding that Bar Associations, in the guise of private, nonprofit membership corporations, occupy a preferred status ⁴⁷⁷ over other