The Portland daily press., 1881-07-15
ATTORNEYS FEES.
An Interesting Opinion Concerning Them

The Supreme Court of Maine has Just rem.
dered decision in the suit of W. H. McLel-
Ian, OF Belfast, VS.. Axel Hayford, which was
an action to recover fees for services as defend
ants attorney The decision is that if the plain
tilt RENTS an amount equa to all sums which
stand charged for the disputed retainers with
interest thereon from the date of the writ, the
entry to be Exceptions overruled." Unles.
he SO RENTS in a reasonable time, exceptions
sustained. The Court in the rescript saws:
When counsellor at law is emploved i,
number of suits by the same party in sncces-
sive years and makes minute and specific
charges OF all services rendered and exnenses
incurred in conducting his clients business,
and, his bill not being paid, brings suit there
on, ana ms account annexed embraces besides
the charges Tor services and disbursements
four retainer fees, amounting to 1926. and If
appears That there was no express contract to
pay any retainer fees except in a single case,
where one OF $50 was paid in advance; and
Ihere IS no proof OF any custom or usage
among lawyers to charge a retainer fee to their
clients it is error for the presiding Judge to in
stfuct the jury that such fees were legal
charge In contested cases for reasonable
amounts, and that the plaintiff should recover
a reasonable sum for retainer fees in each
o"'o' hoiC 10 ~ ouCu Scuordi usage or GUS
tom among lawyers in the State to charge re-
tanners III all contested cases in which thew ara
employed, or to justify the instructions as a
matter OF law that the plaintiff was entitled to
recover something by way of retainer in
every case in which he was engaged
There was no proof of any particular usage
OF that sort with reference to which the parties
might be presumed to have made their con-
tract.
Moreover, in a case where the counsellor was
not merely retained but continued to be en-
piioyed throughout the litigation, and brings
his action for services rendered, and it appears
oy his account that he has specific charges for
all services rendered and expenses incurred in
minute detail, it would be the duty of the pre-
siding judge to instruct the jury that the usage
10 ADJ retainer fee TO an account thus kept
was contrary to the natural reason and Justice
and not binding on the defendant The proper
scope and application of the right to charge re-
talners is to remunerate counsel for being
deprived by being retained for one party Of
the opportunity of rendering services for and
receiving pay from the other.
There was nothing in this case upon which
Judge or jury could rightly say that the de-
Iendant promised to pay anything on account
of the disputed retainers
Ii was suggested at the Bar that the plaintiff
IS willing to cure the error by remittitur. If
ne RENTS an amount equal to all sums which
stands charged for tho disputed retainers with
interest thereon from the da tie of the writ.
there will be no occasion to send the case to a
new trial.
The only error alleged will then have be-
come harmless and the exceptions may be
overruled.
Unless he SO RENTS within reasonable
time, oxCeDtiOnS ovarrn1ad