Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-06-17
OPPRESSIVE FEES OF ATTORNEY
interesting Case I'm New York Court
Involving Contingent Com
pensation.


contingent agreement to compensate at
torheys In land or in money came before
'ne appellate division Of the supreme court
Dh view York In suit of Thomas w Butts
ana Albert w. Bailey, the ATTORNEYS
Ssaihst Marie Juhe Collins Carey. the client
~no othersr to partition certain premises
Nhlch became the clients property as a
result OF the suit in which the contingent
agreement was signed Upon the trial OF
the case the attorneys abandoned their
claim to right to the partition of the
premises and asked to establish a lien on
the property under their retainer They
got Judgment for the entire amount OF
their services, but the appellate division
sets It aside and orders a new trial
IN lsO4 the attorneys, who were praoticIng
as partners, were retained by Mrs. Col
Inns to bring action against her son
Charles II. Collins, to set aside a deed
executed In 1885 to six lots in the Bronx
They took the case on a contingent basis
and were to receive nothing unless they
recovered the property or some part thereof
or judgment for the value or some mart
thereof. The agreement provided that ''she
shau and will pay. deliver, transfer, and
convey to them, and they will accept as
compensation in full for their services and
counsel fees, one-fourth Of any and all
money or property which may or shall be
peld. BY the agreement the client also
ransferred TO the attorneys one-fourth of
the property. for which she was suing ex-
i Dept two plots, and It was agreed upon ad-
'ustins the fee after the judgment, the i'm
proved property. including the house and
lot where she lived. should be allowed to
her, and II there was not a sufficient Dor
tlon remaining to allow the attorneys one
Fourth OF the whole, they were to get the
equivalent in cash.
The attorneys obtained an interIocutory
judgment adjudging the property to be held
by the son as trustee for their client and
directing him to reconvey the property to
MS mother ana give an accounting. Pend
ing the accounting the client conveyed to
her daughter $500 square feet OF property.
leaving remainder of 2O,7OO square feet.
When this deed came to the attention of
the attorneys they filed their suit for par
tttion Of the entire property and to have
II adjudged that the conveyance was subor-
dinate to their rights under the retainer.
on the theory that the retainer constituted
conveyance of one-fourth OF the PREMISES
AZ this time they had not fully performed
their services under the retainer, because
they had not obtained final Judgment
or reconveyance to their client by her son.
The trial court found that the convey
Ance by the client to her daughter wa.
with at confederation, and was executed
and eoepted in fraud OF the rights of the
attor ieys although the appellate division
Gays here was no allegation Of fraud upon
which, TO base the conclusion. The client
ard ner daughter contended that the
mothers equity was ample to SATISFY any
lien Of the attorneys. The trial court ex-
cluded evidence this point on the
aground that 1t was not germane TO the
issue. The higher court holds that this
was error.
Justice Laughlin, writing the appellate
division opinion, says 1t is quite clear that
the attorneys are not entitled to a decree
OF a court OF equity adjudging that they
have lien against the part of the prem
Uses conveyed by the client II the clients
equity In the premises retained is Of suf-
ficient value TO protect the attorneys
rights under the retainer. II there IA ANY
ambiguity In the agreement of the re-
tainer, It is to be construed most strictly
against the attorneys who drew II. the
court said. The. attorneys contend that
NE client did not have a right to mako n
election OF any part OF the premises until
hey had agreed with respect to the Zee
to be charged. but Justice Laughlin saws
there is no force in this contention, and
concludes.
The enforcement Of the general agree.
ment OF retainer as herein sought by the
respondent would be oppressive. and should
not receive the sanction OF a court OF
eQuity."-New York Sun.