Year: 1868

We observe movement in New York


to supersede lawyers in their avocation


By instltuting court to be composed Of


merchants to decide disputes among


themselves, which might otherwise get


into the courts.


The design is by no means a novel
one, and, We fear, will result as all SINH


lar schemes have resulted, in increasing


litigation. 1t will be like an effort we
once saw in this city in great public
confagration to extinguish fire by pour
ing oil upon it. 1t is a great error, we
believe, as general rule, to imagine that
lawyers are responsible for the multiplic-
ity of suits. A knowledge of the law is
not apt to produce such effect. It is
ignorance of legal rights and responsible
tiles, and that conceit which is an A
merican weakness, that every citizen un-
derstands the law as we'll as all other
subjects, which drives people so precipi-
lately into suits. Lawyers who regard
their own time and labor, to say nothing
of their consciences, have no motive or
interest to engage in ftuitless contests.
If their counsel were always needed
there would be fewer suits. But con-
tentious and conceited people get offend
ed with the lawyer who tells them they
have no case. They abandon the hon
est and conscientious lawyer and take
refuge with one who thinks that eve
rv case ia worth trvinr


There is another serious obstacle to
the full exercise of this beneficial infu-
ence of the legal profession in this coun-
try. It is that lawyers are not general


y paid tor that counsel which ought to
command the highest rate of compensa-
tion-that which keeps parties out of
court. Here is an interest in favor of
litigation which does not exist under the
better regulations of the profession in
Eng gland There, when you consult
lawyer on ever so small matter, what
ever may be his answer, you must have
your fee in hand and pay him on the
nail. Here, however, the conscientious
and honest lawyer who tells his client
that the law is not on his side, and he
would incur heavy expenses and vexa-
ton as well as costs by going to law,
not only gets no fee, but he is lucky if
he does not forfeit the good will and res
pect Of his client. No wonder, then, il
hungry and avaricous lawyers, wi h
small dockets, sometimes prefer advising
their excitable clients to bring into court
disputes which ought to be settled out
side.


That great lawyer, COL John r.
Grymes, used to ask all persons who
brought suits to him whether they wan
ted him as lawyer or counselor-the
one he said was more artisan and the
other philosopher. If they wanted
suit brought he was ready to do the best
to gain the case; but he would take no
responsibility for losing it. If lost, it
was by the Incompetence of the judge or
jury,'or precipitancy Of the client. In
case, however, he, as counselor, advised
the suit to be brought, then he would
have a share Of the responsibility for its
failure.


Let all persons who have disputes
with their fellow-men, which they would
determine in satisfactory manner, and
who would avoid the vexatious, the ex.
pensive and harassing involvement of
lawsuit, bear lin mind this distinction
between the lawyer and the counselor,
and be careful always to stipulate to pay
for good counsel, whether in favor Of or
against their preconceived ideas of their
case that, in short, they will pay as lib
orally to keep out of suit as to get in
to one. Let this course be generally
pursued, and the most happy effects will
fellow in diminishing and restraining lit
igation, and in rendering the profession
of law more honored and honorable than
i: is.-N. 0. Times.