The Hope pioneer. [volume] (Hope, N.D.) 1882-1964, 1908-03-05


N0W.E.ARS0Ny-9
AT the first hearing the decision was
against the women.
There was still q forlorn hope. A
great lawyer could save the $45,000
for the women. Would MI. Johnson
undertake it? There were two dis
~couragements to such a plan. The evil
dence was unusually complicated. To
disentangle the facts would be worth
a lawyers fee that would probably
leave little Of the estate.
Nevertheless the women's lawyer
took the papers to Mr.. Johnson. He
said he would read them overnight. 1t
was n Of Mr.. Johnson's peculiarities
that by ignoring details he can reach
the very heart of the controversy in
the shortest possible time, then ex-
press the gist of it in a few simple
words. The next day the women's
lawyer called on Mr.. Johnson.
I'll take the case," he said.
He did so and fought the case
through the county and appellate
courts. He saved the $45,O0O for the
women.
What will be your fee, Mr.. John
SOM" one Of his clients asked.
II will charge you $1,000" he re-
piled. When the women recovered
from their surprise, they were rather
hurt. They were proud, and felt that
they were an object of the lawyers
charity. Mr.. Johnson was stubborn
about it. He insisted that his services
were worth no more.
Fees Past and Present.
A lawyer who is an authority on
the question of fees, drew an interest
ing comparison between the altered
standards of fees, past and present.
"The lawyers of the old school," he
said, "had a very moderate notion Of
fees. When I was a student under
Mr.. Evarts and MI. Choate $3.50
seemed to be an average fee and $500
the exceptional fee, with a tendency
to charge women little or nothing. I
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 a 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-country
districts.
GAS to contingent fees, there are
many popular misconceptions. In the
first place, many a monopolist would
go u%nwhipped 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 a contingent fee.
II personally believe that no pro-
vision in our statutes is more Ameri-
can, in the better sense than the pro-
vision for a 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 a full fee on a failure. except in
the rare case of a client whom he
never expects to see again. I know
| that some charge too large a contin.
| gent fee, but many charge only 10, Is
/ and 20 per cent, and some charge
as little as five per cent. in are in
| stances.
How Rewards Are Fixed.
"a student went to James Russell
Lowell and said: Professor, I 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 student
set forth his views, and Mr.. Lowell
admitted them. I think it has been
the common practice Of SUCH men as
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 mor than $4,000
a year.
Yet at this estimate, the 1900 attor.
neys earn nearly $22, 0 $1,000. The Is
lawyers making 100000 each put an.
other $2,5OO,000 into their pockets.
Allowing $4,000 each for the $500
practitioners remaining conserva.
tive estimate-they would add $18,
375,O00 to the expense bills Of litigants.
Wizard of "Mungo Park"
The Berliner Tageblatt, reviewing g
/ r~ocont1v nuh1ishad hiOprophv nj