The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1922-04-04
Sincerely,
Mrs. George Harris.
April 3, 1922.
DJJNNETT SALARY WAS
NOT UNREASONABLE
Judge Sherman Rules That $ooO res
In Platt Case Was Not
Eveeesive

st. Johnsbury, April 4.-Superlor
Judge Sherman r. Mounton has filed
with the county court here his find
ings in the case of Mrs. Clara f. Platt
Administrative VS.. Charles A. Shields
and David S. Conant surviving part
ners of the law firm of Dunnett,
Shields & Conant. 1t states that
Alexander Dunnett was not over paid
for his services as attorney in prose
cutting the case against the Boston &
Maine railroad for damages for the
death Of the late Frederick S, Platt
in railroad accident near Brattle-
boro in 1918.
Judge Sherman in his findings said
in part
THE question is, OF course. wheth-
er fee Of $4,000 is a reasonable com
pensation Tor the work done In the
case. The opinions Of many mem
bers OF the bar were received in eyi-
dence upon this point They varied
somewhat. The highest estimate was
that $500 would be a reasonable fee,
the lowest $2,500; the average
amout was between $1,000 and $4,000
1t appeared in evidence that Mr.. Dun
nett had frequently received fees in
other litigation, some of which ayerag
ed 500 a day In fact, in the plain.
titf's brief as submitted to me per
diem OF 500, so far as Mr.. Dunnett is
concerned, is considered to be reason
able 1t is difficult to see why the
services OF Messrs. Shields and Con.
ant, where they or either OF them
acted In the case without the pres
ence and co-operat'o on OF Mr. Dunnett,
we're not of equal value. While it Is
true, as has been stated, that neither
Of them was possessed OF the same
amount OF professional experience as
Mr.. Dunnett, yet f. tie value Of pro
fessional services is to be measured
lat least in part by the results obtain
ed, their efforts in connection with
the case were OF as great advantage
to the estate as the efforts OF Mr.
Dunnett would have been
In the proceedings IN the circuit
court OF appeals, which appear TO
have been under the exclusive mani
agement OF Mr. Shields or Mr.. Con.
ant, there was complete success The
case was placed upon the trial cal
endar at the earliest possible NOM
ent and the matter so presented to
the court by brief and oral argu.
ment that the judgment OF the court
below was affirmed without delay
No member of the bar, no matter how
great his experience and reputation,
could possibly have done better than
this. So am inclined to consider
that these services merited the same
compensation as those performed by
Mr.. Dunnett alone or in company with
one or both his partners
81 think, however, that IL is proper
in a case of this sort, as In most
cases, for counsel to charge and to re.
ceIve retaining fee and that re-
tanning fee In matter of this magni-
ture undertaken by a firm of the
standing of Dunnett, Shields & Con.
ant may reasonably be $500.
With this is reasonable per
diem, consider that $4,000 is not an
unreasonable fee to charge and to re.
ceive, taking into consideration the
circumstances in this case.
THE same result is reached IL the
services be regarded as a whole with.
out any attempt to place them upon a
per diem basis Having in view all
the circumstances attend ng this liti-
cation, the question raised by it, serv.
ices performed and the result obtain.
ed. think t1at the fee charged is
not unreasonable