Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1908-02-12

1898 he had earned fortune in his 42
years of practice amounting to some
thing over $1,000,O00. At that time
his income, chiefly from his law prac.
tice, was estimated at 100000 year.
It is said of Mr.. Choate that he would
probably be richer If he had devoted
himself to corporation rather than q
general practice, but that he would
only do SO at the sacrifice of that
excitement and interest which he finds
as an advocate.
John G. Johnson Of Philadelphia 10
generally recognized as one Of the
greatest lawyers in the country. He
once declined seat on the bench of
the supreme court of the United
States because, he said, with his
income of 100000 a year he would
be reduced to poverty If he agreed to
become a justice at $4,000 a year.
Mr.. Johnson has since been raid
100000 for a single case, like the
Northern Securities litigation. involv.
ing the Union Pacific merger. But
lawyers say of him that he will also
take 500 cases with IS fees to right
an injustice or punish crooked deal.
ings when the victims are poor. At
torneys also say of Mr.: Lauterbach
that in the same spirit he will lose
fee rather than have client leave
his Office smarting under an injus-
tice. .
Fees Past and Present.
A lawyer who is an authorite On
the question of fees, drew an interest
ing comparison between the altered
standards of fees, past and present.
1.-THE lawyers of the old school, he
said, had very moderate notion OF
fees. When was student under
Mr.. Evarts and Mr.. Choate $3.50
seemed to be an average fee and $500
the exceptional fee, with a tendency
to charge women little or nothing.
think Mr.. Choate's fees all his life
have been much less than is charged
or supposed to have been charged in
exceptional cases by men like Guth-
RE and Cromwell"
The lawyer continued:
always what seems large fee to
the up-country legislator is really a
| small fee down here. Expenses are
| larger. Loss in other business is many
| times as large as in the up-coun,ry
districts.
CAS- to contingent fees, there are
many popular misconceptions. In tho
first place, many monopolist would
go unwhipped of justice, as the courts
have said in their opinions, but for
the fact that the poor man who has no
money or the man of moderate means
who feels he cannot risk money can
employ counsel on contingent fee.
Il personally believe that no pro.
vision in our statutes is more Ameri-
can, in the better sense than the pro.
vision for contingent fee. Every law.
yer of standing, in some shape or
another, makes his fee contingent in
part or entirely upon his success. No
modern lawyer would think of charg.
ing full fee on a failure. except In
the rare case of a client whom he
never expects to see again. know
that some charge too large contin.
gent fee, but many charge only 10, IL
and 20 per cent, and some charge
as little as five per cent. in rare in
stances.
How Rewards Are Fixed.
"A student went to James Russell
Lowell and said: Professor, think
you have marked me unjustly.' Sir
said Mr.. Lowell, with his grand cour
tesy, I would not willingly wrong
you; will you tell me how you think
you should be marked?' The studen,
set forth his views, and Mr. Lowell
admitted them. I think it has been
the common practice of such men al
Mr.. Choate and Mr.. Evarts to ask
clients their view about their fee and
to fix the fee largely accordingly.
And then, even more than with the
medical profession, it is the custom Of
lawyers to make low charges to the
poor and unfortunate, and to charge
women little or nothing
But the surprising fact remains, as
one lawyer said, that of the 1900
lawyers, fully two-thirds, or 1900 OF
them, do not make more than $4,000
a year.
Yet at this estimate, the 1900 attor
neys earn nearly $22,000,00O. The %
lawyers making 100000 each put an
other $2,500,000 into their pockets
Allowing $4,000 each for the $500
practitioners remaining conserva
tive estimate-they would add $18,
$4,000 to the expense bills of litigants