Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1903-04-29
LIMIT TO LAWYERS CHARGE.
In New York They May Not Take
Half of tho Recovery.

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 today contingent fees can be
charged; and it Is a we'll known fact
that In most negligence cases, which
now consume about three-fourths OF
the time Of our trial judges, and In IL
bel suits, the compensation Of the at
torney is generally made contingent
upon success. This, in itself, Is bad
thing, because 1t appeals to cupidity
and tends naturally to make lawyers
unscrupulous.
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
the successful party should be permit
ted 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 MI
chael McNally were withdrawn, but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 services one
half Of any and all property, both real
and personal, which the said McNally
had inherited. The appellate division
in a strong opinion rendered by Mr..
Justice O'Brien, said: 8
Such an agreement, upon its face,
seems to us to be unconscionable.
BY this agreement the attorney Is to
receive as compensation SO per cent.
Of what the client shall obtain as his
interest in the estate involved 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 q
fee of one-half the clients cause Of ac-
ton; and now that the question Is
squarely presented whether such an
agreement Is considerable we think
it would not be Il the interest of pub
lie policy or professional ethics to
place the seal Of approval upon It."
The second case where the courts
have taken the same view Of such
agreements Is that of Herman against
the Metropolitan Street Railway COM
pany, which came before Judge La
combe in the United States circuit
court few days ago. There In an ac-
cident case an attorney undertook to
prove that he had a contract with the
plaintiff for so per cent. Of any recov-
cry, the plaintiff to pay all disburse-
ments. Judge Lacombe said:
1.-The court Is not satisfied that such
a contract was made, but, If 1t were,
it was so utterly unconscionable as
to be void. To constrain or
persuade a 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 or
the case cited, 1t would not be in the
interest Of public policy or profession
al ethics to approve"
These decisions condemning the ex-
tortionate exaction Of so large a pro-
portion of a judgment or a recovery
seems to us to be eminently just. The
standard of the bar has in some re-
spects degenerated, and 1t Is high time
that the court should interfere to pro-
tect clients from the payment of ex-
cessive fees.-New York Sun.