New-York tribune., 1906-04-07
"ANRTL4NCE cHASLNG.-

While various plans are being devised for
curing the laws delays by the creation of ne7v
judges. the appointment of new commissioners
and saiaried referees and the establishment of
new methods Of procedure. the Court Of Ap-
reals has taken a step 10 cut off Improperly
nurturcd litigation which. if followed M bv
bench and bar. should do much 70 relieve rbe
congestion Of our courts. ana. more important
still put check demOraIzing methods of
practice. The decision recently handed down
IN The proceedings for the disbarment of Arthur
+. Clark is as good a laws delay measure rs
any bill fer new machinery now pendin.- in
the Legislature
'-ark was a Batavia attorney. He made q
contract with Charles 4. Smell by the terms of
which he employed Smell TO procure persoo,
III various parts Of the state 10 retain CIarl, 10
bring actions against telephone anC talegranb
companies for setting up poles in the highways
on which lie sought for clients owned propprty
Clark agreed TO pay Smell for securing, Tho Mac
lng Of claims i'm his hands. ana Smell did So
cure more than TWO thousand claims which
clark was 10 prosecute on a contingent basis
receiving from 10 per cent 10 80 nor cont of
what he recovered. Most of The claims wore
settled without trial. Other charges were ma lie
AGAINST tlark with relation 10 the settlement
After he mad procured large number of claims
nf llau" secret arrangement with Il telephone
company which practically amounted IN sell
ING out his clients. His conduct in this matter
was most severely oensured 10y the Court of
Appeals. The finding with reSnect IN his ON,
pio!heh ol runner and agent. however is
oi more special interest for its hearing on a
practice generally tolerated in this city The
court 10y a unanimous vote upheld the decision
oi me Appellate Division at Rochester con-
hrmlh% the report OF Charles 4 Hawley. the
lei'Iee' ana. on the argument Of Selden =
Brown. since appointed Surrogate of Monroe
county. disbarrinS Clark. Judge Willard Bart
lett wrote the opinion in tho Court Of Appoals
in which he said:
Tho effect Of the decision below is to hold th,,
Section a . not only E5robibitg n Iau
from Offering or giving any Valuable copSijeys-
uon 10 a desired client for the, purpose of Oh
tanning his claim 10 b'ing suit upon but also
iorblcs The lawyer from paying or agreeing "a
pay any layfnan out OF the prospective 1.ro7ts
q The case FOR services ia inducing = tcsir a
client 10 place his claim Ia the attorneys il,,ds
Tor enforcement In behalf Il the appellant n
Is contended that this construction is ipco--e
ana mat The Ciion seeks only 10 prohibit IN.
oHer or gift from attorney 10 the rersorI hr,,
Ing the canl-that is 10 saw Ia tbe 5l;,,a
cheht-as an inducement to the retainer.
Judge Bartlett upheld the construction OF the
Appellate Division, and. discussing the effect
OF The ruling, Tins demolished one Of the STOCK
arguments made in defence of the promoters
Of damage suits:
Nor IS there anything in the sugpestt,,, ,t,,
the employment OF such paid emissaries Is es-
sentlal 10 the protection OF the poor. who tls.
might not become aware q their right Ia r,ro-s
cute remedies IN the courts Tor wrong ttgbtch
they may have suffered. The permission which
the laW now gives 10 attorueys TO serve ,TI..,tg
Tor contingent fee Is sufficiently well known
throughout the community 20 enable nv 90
however limited his means. 10 secure adequsts
professional service "a the enforcement OF ;tuv
nerftOri0us claim in the courts II is not ueces-
sarF Tor th- Droteeti2n of 'Gs Doar - san"'ion