Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-08-11
DECISION OF COURT
(CoFntinued from Page 81

No doubt the last few years have fur
nished instances of excessive fees suf-
ficiently to amount almost TO a scandal
in the eyes of a large portion of the
community and OF the bar itself, and
the Sumner litigation is not the least
notorious in this respect. But that is
no reason Why the respondent should
be punished quasi.criminally upon an
occasion when, as seems to be the case
here, the fee was asked in good faith
and is such that there might be a fair
difference pf opinion as to its reason
ablcness? There is no doubt that the
fee in question covered all the matters
referred to. Sumner as well as the re-
spondent says that that was the agree
ment at the time, and the receipt which
was given afterwards, but before this
proceeding was thought of, specifically
. so states The receipt was not given
at the time either because It was
thought unnecessary or because the re-
spondent had to hurry into court.
When 1t was given, which was in July,
about a week or so before this pro-
| ceedng was begun, It was dated July
20 by mistake for June 20, the day on
which the Zee was paid.
Of course, II Mr.. Sumner were a man
of ordinary strength Of mind, II would
be preposterOus to hold that the re-
spondent should be punished for Charg-
ing a fee OF this amount under the cir
Cumstances. The only serious diff
Guilty in the case would seem 70 arise
( from the fact that he Is an aged man
of weak mind and easily influenced.
There Is no doubt Of this.-as shown by
his inability again and again to escape
imposition in the management of his
roperty-although two Circuit Judges
have recently held that he. was sane,
and large number of the leading
physicians. lawyers and business men
of this city have certified to his sanity.
The respondent contends that Mr.. SUM-
ner, while appearing in an unfayorable
light, indeed, at his worst, on the wit
ness stand, seems as rational as others
in private conversation. and that. while
CrcdulOus and easily mislcd by fattcr-
ing promises he Is strong minded in
the sense that he knows what he
wants or does not want and that
when he makes up his mind as
to that. nothing can move him. There
seems to DC much truth in this con.
,tention.-tO judge from the evidence
in the various Sumner cases that have
come before us. But IL Is unucCcssa.
T! TO attempt a psychological analysis
Ci Mr.. Sumncr-a problem which has
puzzled many and led to diverse opin'
ions. 1t no doubt makes a great dif'
ference how Mr.. Sumner Is handled
He must be dealt with. II successfully
IN peculiar ways, but that docs not
show that he Is not wcak.mindcd and
easily Influenced. II merely shows
that his weak points must be discov
cred and appropriately played upon
That he cannot endure prolonged men
tai strain Is evident. But how does al
this AFFECT the question now before u.s.
|, the respondent could have asked 9
, fee of like amount for like services oI
one in normal mental condition with
cut being subject to quasiCrimina
| lASN'NNAhEsI NbhAN Nv l'' VI wi gum
| ner? In the one case there might per
maps be a recovery OF part in an ap
. propriate proceeding IL II should b,
dCCiucd that the fee was excessive
. and in the other, not. But can IL max,
any difference in a proceeding Of thi!
kind so long as the charge was made
5 honestly and In good faith. Mr.. sum
. ner was not under guardianship, CoulC
5 not the respondent properly Charg,
the client who employed him what III
. thought was rcasOnaDic fee? And j
seems clear that the responder
thought this q reasonable fee. Mus
e first nave seen that sumner had le
ral advice as to the amount OF the fee
There Is no rule of law requiring that
and should tne attorney, II any, CallcC
upon to advise him as to that ic'
likewise see that Sumner had furthc
E legal advice as to his, the second at
torney's. fee and so on ad infuitum
/, No doubt IL would have been appropri
ale. II nothing more, for the respond
+ ont himself TO have sought advice II
r q friendly way OF brother attorneys o
T. perhaps even of judge as to wha
!. would be reasonable fee under tn
. circumstances, but there was no obi
= cation on him to do so. That Is not in
frequently done even In respect Of fee
;, charged men OF unquestioned menta
. soundness. Even such men often pa
1 without objection what they conside
:. excessive fees because the attorney
. charge them. In the present case Nj
|. Sumner both at the time and ate
;. wards, when there was no reaso
:. whatever for saying SO II he did nc
d feel so, said that he vas perfectly sa
d ished. The respondent could not hay
;, made II easier for him to object If b
had cared to. There was room for a
. honest difference OF opinion as to th
reasonableness OF the amount. Unde
@ such circumstances, how can III
!. Court intiict a penalty in a procccdin
d cf this kind-mcroly because II differ
!, In opinion from the attorney as to III
. r. RsOnablencss Oi the charge?
4 Tho ,pTnnIuinf q Nl=rnIetau