The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1899-12-21
LAWYER VS.. Client.

Law oullb lOl 'llC OChOlt6 vi w
yers regardless of the interest of eli
ents are frequently placed on our
court calendars. A certain class of
attorneys make living by encourag-
ing litigation, and watch the news
papers for accounts of accidents or
items of any kind which give a clew
against somebody. 1t makes little
difference how fiimsy the grievance
may be, if it is plausible enough to
furnish material for a summons and
complaint the lawyer can probably
use it to make a nuisance of himself
long enough to get some small fee out
of "a settlement. Rather than go to
the trouble of trial a defendant is
often willing to pay what virtually
amounts to blackmail.
The existence of this system of
trumping up suits is perfectly recog-
nized by the legal profession and the
courts, and some attempts are made
to discourage it. Unfortunately, ow-
ing to our rules of procedure, or
the unreadiness of our judges to cut
through technicalities, those efforts
have not been so successful here as
they have in England. 1t is interest
ing, therefore, to note how Justice
Gaynor, of the New York Supreme
Court, has just disposed of a curious
manifestation of the idea that liti-
cation exists to furnish the legal pro-
fession business.
A lawyer asked permission TO com
pei his client to continue suit against
a man for alienation of his wife's af-
fections. 1t seemed that the family
had had trouble, the wife had sued
for separation, and the husband had
begun this counter suit. But before
either case had come to trial the
couple became reconciled, and, of
course. the husband ceased to have
any grievance against the man he
had sued. But here the lawyer
stepped in. If his client should re-
cover damages he would share the
proceeds, and he had a vested right
in the prosecution of the case. A
trial would have compelled the rak-
ing up of the buried disagreements
and have put the reconciled husband
and wife in apparent if not actual
enmity. In fact, in order to collect
anything the lawyer must have sue
ceeded in practically forcing the sep
aration of this family. SO that his
client might have a claim to money,
he was willing to break up his home,
or dig out its scandals, and compel
the husband to be an unwilling COM
plainant against the conduct of his
wife. This was so manifestly against
public policy and all ideas of right
that it is not surprising that Justice
Gaynor fatty refused to permit any
such perversion of the machinery Of
the law. 1t is surprising that any
body should have thought that the
laws would thus make themselves the
instruments of wrong merely to fur
| nish professional emoluments to an
officer of the court.
There are circumstances when a
lawyer has Il right to protest against
the settlement of case over his head
particularly when it is done merely to
avoid paying him for his work But
certainly that right does not carry
with it a cOmpulsion on men to make
| family scandals and nurse enmities
| just to let lawyers earn fees. If our
| statutes or rulings have by any
chance come to give reputable law
yers any notion that it does it is time
for simple common sense to force a
! correction.