Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1903-02-12
1 Lawyer Mustn't Take Half the Pct.

In the old days, even in this State,
it was illegal to make an agreement
for contingent fee, but under the
law as it is to-day contingent fees can
be charged; and it is well-known
fact that in most negligence cases,
which now consume about three
fourths of the time of our trial judges,
and in libel suits, the compensation
of the attorney is generally made con-
tingent upon success. This, in itself,
is a bad thing, because it appeals to
cupidity and tends naturally to make
lawyers interruptions.
There have been two interesting de-
cisions recently on the question of how
much of the amount recovered in an
action or proceeding the lawyer for
tho successful party should be per-
mitted to grab.
The first decision was rendered by
the Appellate Division of this depart
ment in the matter OF Fitzsimmons.
The question came up on an account
ing of large estate left by Ann Cas-
| sidy in 1897, Objections filed to the
account OF the Administrative by
Michael McNally were withdrawn, but
the motion to approve the account
was opposed by McNally's attorney
who produced an agreement giving
him as full compensation for his SER
vices one-half of any and all property,
both real and personal, which the said
McNally had inherited. The Appel
late Division, in a strong opinion rend-
cred by Justice O'Brien, said:
''Such an agreement, upon its face,
seems to us to be unconsciousable.
By this agreement the at
torney is to receive as compensation
so per cent. of what the client shall
obtain as his interest in the estate in
volved in the proceeding. We are
aware that of late the payment OF
large fees has been sanctioned by
courts, but no case has been brought
to our attention which has gone to the
extent of upholding fee of one-half
| the clients cause of action; and now
that the question is squarely presented
| whether such an agreement is con-
scionable we think it would not be in
the interest of public policy or pro-
fessional ethics to place the seal of ap-
proval upon it..
The second case where the court has
taken the same view of such agree
ments is that of Herman against the
Metropolitan Street Railway Company,
which came before Judge Lacombe in
the United States Circuit Court few
days ago. There in an accident case
an attorney undertook to prove that
he had contract with the plaintiff for
so per cent. of any recovery, the
plaintiff to pay all disbursements.
Judge Lacombe said:
ssThe court is not satisfied that such
a contract was made, but, ii it were,
it was SO utterly unconscionable as to
be void. 10 constrain or
persuade client into agreeing to give
half the recovery, and to pay all the
disbursements besides, for preparing
and trying such case is an abuse of
confidence, which, in the language of
the case cited, 1T would not be in the
interest of public policy or professional
ethics to approve"
These decisions condemning the ex-
tortionate exaction of so large a pro-
portion OF a judgment or a recovery
seem TO us to be eminently just. The
standard of the bar has in some re-
spects degenerated, and it is high time
that the court should interfere to pro-
tect clients from the payment of ex-
cessive contingent fees.-Neao York
Sam