Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1880-01-03
Lawyers Fees.
WHERE TIE HARTFORD BAR SAYS THE LINE MUST
RE DRawN

BE DRAWN.
One thing was settled as to the relation OF
lawyer TO his clients, by the recent action OF the
Hartford county bar, that is matter for public
rejoicing. The bar permits members of 1t 10 do
many queer things. 1t sometimes happens that
men keep their names on the rolls long after it
is matter OF common notoriety that they are
dishonest and guilty of disgraceful practices.
Men continue TO practice In court whom almost
all the lawyers and judges regard as disgrace
to the profession. But we are glad to see that
the bar docs draw its line somewhere and can
act With prompt yfgor in some cases. The
Southington lawyer was thrown over by the
Hartford county bar the other day for making
bill for services exceeding the amount collected.
His reckless conduct was more than the bar
could stand. A limit to a lawyers charges must
be fixed somewhere, and this limit is now
justly established at the amount OF the
VOWED in a suit, or the amount that man
leaves by will. So lar the honorable lawyer may
60, but Ire may not take more than the man has.
There is as We understand IL, no legal objection
IL his taking more than his client has, but 1t Is
bad policy, It is often impossible. it tends to dis
courage clients and decrease litigation. II
creditor wants to collect sum due him. and
knows that his lawyer will charge him q fee
above the amount collected. he will let the debt
so. The bar sees this, and nobly takes the eli
entS side. The Southington lawyer, who seems
TO have been too Jealous in his profession. went
10 collect bill OF So he didn't collect it. and he
charged his client Sc for the attempt. Now, the
attempt may have been worth Sc; VIC have no
doubt 1t was to the lawyer who made it, and we
have no doubt that the Hartford county bar
agrees secretly with the Southington lawyer,
that it was worth &C. But it was not prudent to
charge that; it was pretty nearly unprofesSional
TO do so, because such charges discourage the
employment OF lawyers. The creditor himself
might have gone to his debtor and not collected
the So just as WELL II the lawyer had got the So
and put them in his pocket, that would have
been the last of 1t: society and the bar would
have recognized that as a regular thing; Justice
ought to pay for itself. But a charge OF Sd for
rot collecting SO, struck the bar as OVERRIDING a
good thing.
But there was one point on which the Hart
ford bar was unjust to the Southington brother.
He had collected s35 for his client. The client
met him on the street and asked him why he
did not pay 1t over. The lawyer charged his
client 81 for this consultation and the bar
condemns this, we think unreaSonably. The
question of the client was legal one II re-
of law to answer 1t. Nobody but lawyer can
tell why lawyer does not pay over money he
has collected. II the client had consulted
another lawyer on this point, he would have
had to pay more than dollar. We think the
Southington lawyer let him off cheap. We are
Told by lawyers in Hartford that there are law
yers who do dishonorable things, and yet not
thrown over. But this forbearauce has it's
limits; hereafter no lawyer will dare TO charge
more than he can get for his services. The
This, however, does not apply to wills. II the
amount bequeathed is small and the heirs con-
test, they must be expected to chpin something
over and above the bequeSt to the lawyers. A
different principle is involved here from that in
the ordinary collection of debt. We are In the
higher regions of the law, where the atmosphere
is dry and thin and labor costs more The re-
cent action taken simply relates to the vulgar
collection Of debt; but 1t Is very important to
have the rule established that when lawyer
client S35 for the job. Litigation will now go on
more freely,-THdTtfOfu COItfallt, Dec, o.