The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1922-04-01
SALARY
NOT UNREASONABLE
Judge Sherman Rules That $1,000 Fee
In Plat Case Is Not
Excessive

ST. JOHNSBURY. April 1.-Superior
Judge Sherman r. MOultOn has filed with
the county court here his findings in the
case of Mrs. Clara T. Plat, adminstra-
trix VS.. Charles \. Shields and David
:. COnant. surviving partners of the law
firm of Dunnett, Shields & Conant. 1t
states that Alexander Dunnett was not
over paid for his services as attorney in
prosecuting the case against the Boston
& Maine railroad for damages for the
death of the late Frederick S. Plat in a
railroad accident near Brattlebor0 in
1918
Judge Sherman in his findings said in
part:
The question is, of course, whether Il
fee of $1,000 is a reasonable Compeusa-
tion for the work done in the case. The
opinions of many members of the bar
were received in evidence upon this point.
They varied somewhat. The highest esti-
mate was that $500 would be a reason
able fee, the lowest $500: the average
amount was between 5000 and $4,000.
1t appeared in evidence that Mr.. Dunnett
had frequently received fees in other iit-
cation. some of which averaged 500
day. In fact. in the plaintiff brief as
submitted to mo n per diem of 500, so
far as Mr.. Dunnett is concerned, Is con
siflered to be reasonable. tits difficult to
see why the services of MesSrs. Shields
and Conant, where they or either of them
acted in the case without the presence
and cooperation of Mr.. Dunnctt, were
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.
vet if the value of professional services
is to be measured at least in part by the
results obtained. their efforts in connec-
ton with the case were of as great adj
vantage 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 management of Mr..
Shields or Mr. COnant. there was complete
success. The case was placed upon the
trial calendar at the earliest possible
moment and the matter 50 presented to
the court by n brief and oral argument
that the judgment of the court below was
affirmed without delay. No member of
the bar, no matter how great his expert
ence and reputation. could possibly have
done better than this. So I am inclined
to consider that these services merited
the same CONDENSATION as those per
formed by Mr.. Dunnctt alone or in com
PAW with one or both his partners
II think. however. that it is proper in
case of this sort. as in most cases. for
counsel to charge and to receive Il retain
ing fee. and that n retaining fee i'm
matter of-thIS magnitude undertaken by
firm of the standing Of Dunnett. Shields
Conant may reasonably be $500.
With this in mind and on a basis
that 500 is rcasonab BILE per diem |
consider that $1,000 is not an unreason-
able fee to charge and to receive. taking
into consideration the circumstances in
this case.
The same result is reached if the ser
vices be regarded as a whole without any
attempt to place them upon a per diem
basis. Having in view all the circum-
stances attending this litigation. the ques-
tons raised by it. services performed and
the result obtained, I think that the
fee charged is not unreasonable"