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

OF law OF equity 10 settle. II SUCn aD-
pear to be the case and no professional
misconduct be shown to exist, the
court will hot exercise its summary
Jurisdiction"
1t is true that attorney and client
sustain confidential relation towards
each other and that in consequence
when dealings between them are
sought to be set aside the burden of
proof is shifted to the attorney to show
that the transaction Is fair and rea-
sonable, but not only is this not such a
proceeding but even when such trans
actions are set aside on the presimp-
ton of undue influence. ii Is not cause
for the disDarment or suspension of
,Ee attorney so long as he has acted
honestly and IL good faith. Tho trans
action in such case Is treated as It
would be If Il were between others in
confidential relations, ami the parties
are left to their civil remedies
The question then is whether he re-
spOndent acted in such a way as to call
for punishment quasi-Criminally. Is
such conduct shown either by what
was actually done to induce the pay
ment of the Tee, and, il not. was the
fee itself 30 grossly excessive as to
show such conduct irrespective OF what
was done by the respondent to induce
its payment! II would seem that there
could be but one answer to the first OF
these questions. The evidence for the
prosecution az well as for the respond
ent) shows that the respondent did not
say a word to Sumner about fees until
after the conclusion OF the Ropert case
and after the proceeds Of that case we're
deposited 10 Summers credit in the
bank; that ne then said to Sumner
that he thought that they ought to
make some settlement as to his fee:
that Sumner when asked how much he
wanted, to which the respondent re-
piled that lie preferred to leave 1t to
him (Sumner): that Sumner said he
thought $500; that the respondent,
who was, as he says, surprised and
had in mind $500 as proper fee. called
his ,(Sumner'sJ attention to the amount
of work that he had done and partic-
ularly to number of other suits and
matters besides the Ropert suit in
which he had acted for Sumner and
said that he thought that $4,000 would
be a very fair and reasonable fee, to
which Sumner replied that II was all
right and that he was perfectly salts
fed; and that the respondent then said
that IL he CSumner) were not satisfied.
he. the respondent, wished him to say
so and be frank with him, but that
Sumner said, no, he was perfectly sat
igfed. Il was all right All OF this took
only few minutes. Sumner soon at
forwards told his nephew, r. W. Davis,
with whom he was living and with
whom he talked over everything at
that time and in whom he seemed to
have complete confidence, that he was
satisfied. He likewise told the Attor-
ney General the same thing when the
latter made inquiry of him preparatory
to bringing this proceeding. He re-
iterated II several times on the witness
stand In this proceeding.-that he was
satisfied when he paid the fee and
was still satisfied, though he also said
(but just after he had been asked why
he had paid the respondent $4,000 and
his associate counsel $1,000. the latter
, of whom had threatened to suit him
, that he was afraid that II he refused
they might bring a suit against hin
and that he felt within him that the
, sum of four thousand dollars was toe
large but that he did not say so. Il
looks much as II this last idea wer,
Z an afterthought. but suppose II wer,
not, there was nothing at the time Il
! indicate to the respondent that Sum
I ner had any such bought within him.
What should the respondent hav,
q done? Who should name, or at leas
, suggest, the amount of an attorney!
: fee II not the attorney himself
: Where should he do so II not in hii
o office? when should he do II, II no
when the litigation is terminated 20
before), even II his client is then in {
happy frame OF mind over his victory
|, Sumner seems still to be In that frame
z How long should the attorney wait
a especially when his client, as In thi!
4 case, was about to leave the Territor,
: for an indefinite period to return L
: his home in Tahiti? Sumner evident
, ly looked upon the respondent as tn,
r one who had brought that suit to
I successful termination, and was mucl
: pleased with his work in that and 9th
1 err matters and apparently is still
: pleased. He looked upon the respond
n ent in a very different light iron
8 that in which he looked upon the re
o spondents associate counsel He him
&. self proposed to pay the responder
: $500, but held out long and strenu
: ously against paying the associat
Il more than 81 800 and readily acquiesc
ed In paying the respondent $500
when the latter called his attention t
n all the services that that fee was I
! cover.
Now as to the amount OF the fee.
y was for the services OF the responder
Is as leading counsel in the Ropert cas-
a n caga inyplyinp xIp nDE ana anp,