Case Name: O'NEILL et al. v. CAMPBELL et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-03-08
Citations: 103 N.Y.S. 150
Docket Number: 
Parties: O’NEILL et al. v. CAMPBELL et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 103
Pages: 150–153

Head Matter:
(118 App. Div. 64)
O’NEILL et al. v. CAMPBELL et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Mrst Department.
March 8, 1907.)
Champerty and Maintenance—Attorney and Client—Retainer—Validity.
Code Civ. Proe. § 66, provides that the compensation oí an attorney for his services is governed- by agreement, express or implied, which is not restrained by law. Section 74 provides that an attorney shall not by himself, or in the name of another person, promise or give a valuable consideration to any person as an inducement to placing in his hands a demand of any kind for the purpose of bringing an action thereon, -and section 75 makes a violation of the preceding section a misdemeanor. In an action by an attorney to enforce a lien on a settlement made by his client who sued for personal injuries, the client testified that an unknown person came to him the day he was injured, and when he signed the retainer, and asked him if be needed any money, and said that perhaps he ' would call on the client within a week or so, to which the client responded that perhaps he would need such person some time. Held, that it not appearing whether such conversation took place before the retainer was signed, or that the client was induced thereby to execute it, the retainer was not shown to be invalid under the statute.
Lambert and Ingraham, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Thomas J. O’Neill and another against Christopher Campbell and another. Appeal by defendant Campbell from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Affirmed.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, LAUGH-EIN, HOUGHTON, and LAMBERT, JJ.
William J. Moran, for appellant.
Thomas J. O’Neill, for respondents.

Opinion:
LAUGHLIN, J.
The material facts are fully stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice INGRAPIAM. It does not appear that the conversation between the client and the person who represented the plaintiffs in procuring the retainer, upon whicli it is sought to invalidate it, took place before the retainer was signed, or that the client was induced thereby to execute the retainer. I am of opinion, therefore, that the appellant failed to show facts sufficient to require an adjudication that the retainer was invalid.
It follows that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
PATTERSON, P. J., and HOUGHTON, J., concur.