Court Opinion

ID: 9736778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:06:15.690553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:54.557514
License: Public Domain

Wachenfeld, J.
(dissenting). In In re Woodworth, 15 Fed. Supp. 291; affirmed, 85 F. 2d 50 (C. C. A. 2, 1936), the court held:
“On principle, it cannot be doubted that when an attorney makes an agreement to prosecute a case for a fee contingent on success, and is disbarred before the fee is earned, he may not collect compensation from his client for the work done. The agreed fee he cannot have, because he has not performed his engagement and the contingency on which the compensation was to rest has not happened. Reasonable compensation in lieu of the fee he cannot have, because his inability to complete his contract has been brought about by his own wrongful ■conduct.”
I subscribe to this reasoning and conclusion and am therefore to affirm.
Adopting this rule would not complicate or bring economic ■considerations into disciplinary proceedings nor would it defeat their purpose. It would, in my opinion, be an added incentive to professional conduct, which is foreign to disciplinary complaints.
*530Admittedly, the plaintiff was disbarred because of his own wrongful act, and whether it was with reference to this particular case or not, the result, in my opinion, is the same.
The penalty falls and he can no longer represent his client because of his wrongful conduct. The result of that misconduct should be uniform, not varying with the degree of culpability or its relationship to any particular case.
“I-Iis inability to complete his contract has been brought about by his own wrongful conduct.”
I would affirm the judgment.
For reversal — Chief Justice Vandeebilt, and Justices Case, Heiiek, Olephant, Bueling and Ackekson — 6.
For affirmance — Justice Wachenfeld — 1.