Litchfield enquirer., 1880-02-12
Term Fees.

The bill abolishiHg lawyers term fees passed the House, last week. substantially unoppos- ed. It is a wise measure and we are sorry to see it treated as joke, or as ah unjustifiable attack on an honorable profession. Tie term fee once had a real foundation in services rendered. At the opening of each court term, the docket was called, and every lawyer had to be present to answer to his cases. For this service he made a reasonable charge This custom has long since been discontinued; and now the term fee remains only as grievous abuse, and as a constant premium on neglect of duty. It is specially inconsistent with the new code of practice which went into effect on the first of January, and which proposes to simplify pleadings,t to urge the speedy joinder of issues ot fact or law, to divest the practice of law as far as possible of it's trickeries and technicalities, and to bring parties to an early trial of the substantial questions of difference between them
 Our objection IS. not that lawyers fees are, in general, exorbitant; but that they are charged upon a wrong principle. Negligence is rewarded and diligence punished under the term fee system. In every case in court a certain amount of preliminary work is neces- sary before trial, which is precisely the same whether the case lies one year or three years upon the docket But the lawyer is given $1O fee for every term his case is pending in court. Hence, if he forces it trial in year, he receives $40 less than he would to let it lie two years. That lawyers do urge on cases to speedy trial against their pecuniary interest, and that they are then punished for their diligence by receiving smaller fees, shows upon how false principle the term fee is based. The tendency of the system, however, is plainly towards delay.
 The second section of the bill in question provides for the establishment by the bars of the several counties in the State of full tables of fees such as will give clients of average in- telligence an approximate notion of the ex- pense of the litigation on which they embark, and which will prevent their being surprised in the end with grossly extortionate charges The tables of fees now in use are intended to prevent the cutting down of charges by con- petition between lawyers rather than for the protection of clients. They fix the msiainauna not the maarina~D1 fee lawyer may charge. Hence has grown up the popular belief that it is useless to contest lawyers bill, no matter how exorbitant. No doubt courts will put some sort of limit on attorneys fees; but the contest is SO one sided from the outset, lawyers are so 10th to meddle with each others bills, and courts are suspected of so stronga professional bias, that clients seldom risk the experiment of mourning more lawyers charges to contest those already made. For this reason it seems but just that some measures should be adopted to make that certain which is now so uncertain, and to fix limit to charges which are now practically limited only by the con- science of the party making them.
 The common law fully recognized the dan- ger of lawyers extortions by refusing the bar rister the right to sue for his fees. He might accept free gift from client for services rendered, or to be rendered, but he could claim nothing as his legal right. The English rule does not prevail in America lexcept ap- parently in New Jersey) but we believe that it would be to the advantage of both lawyer and client that the amount chargeable in any given case should be ascertainabie with reasonable accuracy in advance. As matters now stand, careful people suffer much loss and submit to gross wrong, rather than incur the marvellous uncertainties of expense involved in recourse