Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-08-11

guardianship. US an insane person, and
all services to be rendered ON appeal |
and further trials or hearings, II any,
thereafter. II covers services rendered
in procuring for Sumner the SiS,025
from SumnerG trustee, the settlement
OF the account with the trustee, the
cancellation OF n will, the drafting Of
C conveyance from the trustee to Sum-
ner to the respondent. the drafting OF
a trust deed from Sumner to r. w.
Davis covering thirty or forty thou
sand dollars worth OF property, the ad-
justment of a number OF claims against
Sumner without suit, &c, &c. II Is
true Mr.. G. A. Davis, respondents as
sociate, had already received $4,000 as
his fee, but that apparently was Excess
sive for his services in the Ropert case
alone. and in SO far as II was Excess
s!ve and obtained by undue influence II
need not be considered In connection
with the respondents fee. Mr.. Davis
also did not come into the case at the
start. The respondent was leading
counsel. and. besides himself. two 9TH
er attorneys in his Office devoted much
time to the case. The matters outside
OF the Ropert case which the respond
ent's fee also covered were not COW
cred by Mr.. Davis fee. While the fee
paid to associate counsel should be
taken into consideration the fee for
leading and associate counsel together
should be greater than the fee for one
alone should be II there were no asso-
ciate. Now, in my opinion the re-
! spondent's fee was excessive even for
all the services rendered and to he rem
dered. But is that material in this
case? II every attorney is to be liable
&c disbarment or suspension whenever
he charges a fee that is excessive in
the opinion OF the court or otherwise
acts on view in which the court diff
fers from him in opinion, the profess
sion will be pretty dangerous one to
follow. An attorney should be allowed
considerable scope for the exercise Of
judgment. Much leeway should be al
lowed for honest difference OF opinion
especially ia proceedings of a quasi
criminal nature. II we may judge from
the present Iun OF fees among the men,
bers OF the bar. which apparently are
somewhat higher now than they were
ten or even five years ago, and often,
In our opinion, altogether too high; II
we may Judge from the testimony CIV
en- by leading members OF the bar as to
proper fees in cases involving that
question in the courts from time to
time, we may safely affirm that a con-
siderable portion OF the bar, including
some of those Of highest standing in
point OF both ability and character.
would, II called upon. testify that the
fee in question was not unreasonable,
considering the various suits and other
matters covered by It, the services yet
TO be rendered and uncertain in extent
as well as those already rendered, the
amount and difficulty and responsible
nature OF the work, the large amounts
involved and the success attained. not
TO mention the absence OF retainer in
the first instance and the doubt as to
what compensation would be obtained
, In view of Summers lack Of funds out
, side OF those involved in the suit. The
, respondent even advanced money for
, Summers support during the litigation
, II we consider awards OF fees made by
/, Circuit Judges on various occasions lin
our opinion clearly excessively w
. should have to say that the fee In
question Is very moderate by comparl.
r son. Even II we compare the fees al.
= lowed by this court In some cases, ant
. we do not mean to imply that they