University of Michigan Law School - Quad Yearbook (Ann Arbor, MI)

Page 87 text:

called champerty. By the Statute 33, Edward l, Vol. 2 Qr3o5j, it was enacted: Ch:uuperters, be they who move pleas or suits, or cause them to be moved by their own procurement or by others, and are at their proper costs to have part of the land in variance, or to have part of the gainsf, lilver since they were declared criminal acts under the statutes, maintenance, champerty, barratry and embracery have so continued in England, and in most of the United States until a recent date. But all such offences are now done away with in Michigan and in some of the other States, and the question arises whether it is now contrary to legal ethics to enter into an agreement with a client to institute or carry on a suit for a share of the spoils. It is no longer illegal. Ts it dishonorable? If such agreement to share in the spoils tends to debase the business of an advocate by making his profession depend upon a game of chance, if it tends to deprave his nature by inducing him to stir up litigation, encouraging law suits which have little or no merit in them, if the idea of running after clients and proposing to prosecute their claims for a share of the plunder, offends the high sense of honor which should charac- terize the profession in all his relations to society, then it is contrary to legal ethics, and contravenes that high code of honor which he is pledged to maintain. That it does belittle the lawyer in his own estimation and in the eyes of the public, cannot be gainsaid. The result of this practice is, and has been, that wheneverhan accident happens, causing death or personal injury, this class of attorneys hear of the injury before the surgeons do, and rush headlong for the scene, tumbling over each other in their haste to be the first on the ground, with a contract in their pocket already prepared for the injured person if he be not killed, or, if he is, then for the widow, if he have one, to sign-only leaving a blank to be filled, as to the share of the recovery the attorney shall have. This being filled in, the signature is obtained, and a suit promptly commenced, if the party refuses to settle at the attorneyis figures. Such an attorney never stops to inquire whether his client has a cause of action. He is taking the chances, .and banking upon the sympathies and preju- dices of a jury, if the defendant be a corporation. There can be no doubt but that such practice is unprofessional and contrary to legal ethics. ,Only one possible exception can be urged as an excuse. That is, where the party has a just and meritorious cause w

Page 86 text:

not dependent upon the outward tinsel of. titles bestowed by prince or potentate. It has always been, since courts were established, a calling of distinction. 'By the Roman polity the advocates who had discharged the duties of their office with fidelity were held in special. honor and numbered among the Counts of the Empire. In France, from the commencement of the fourteenth century to the Revolution of 1790, advocates were constituted a lesser order of nobility, and like the orders of chivalry, purity of life and disinterested zeal in the cause of the poor and friendless were to distinguish them. The advocate under the French regime was subject to the rules and 'discipline of the order. Among these rules were the following: ' Ffrsf. He was not to take just and unjust causes alike without distinction, nor maintain such as he undertook with trickery, falla- cies and misquotations of authorities. ' I Semzzzi. He was not in his pleadings to indulge in abuse of the opposite party or his counsel. Thz'ra'. He was not to compromise the interests of his clients by absence from court when the cause in which he was retained was called on. Fazmffz. He was not to violate the respect due to the court, by either improper expressions or unbecoming gestures. FHM. He was not to exhibit a sordid avidity to gain by putting too high a price upon his services. - ' Sixik. He was not to make any bargain with his client for a share in the fruits of the judgment he might recover. Sezfefzfh. He was not to leada dissipated life, or one contrary to the modesty or gravity of his calling. Ezlghih. He was not, under pain of being disbarred, to refuse his services to the indigent anduoppressed. These rules in themselves embrace a code of ethics for the profession. They have come down to us through the centuries and are recognized everywhere as the common law, regulating the profes- sional conduct of the lawyer. Among these, the Sixth deserves more than passing notice. By the common law of England the crime called maintenance ns a suit or quarrel to the disturbance or h111Cl1'a11Ce Of right, and if he who maintains another in his suit is '50 have: bl' 3g1'CemC11f, P-211 C Of the land or debt, the offense is was where a man maintai

Page 88 text:

of action, and ismtoo poor to pay for the services of a lawyer. But in Sllch Case the eighth principle enunciated covers the point. An attorney who is imbued with the true spirit of his profession will in any case, where a party desires to bring suit and he advises his client that he hasta good cause of action, plant the suit for him, perform the services and await the result. But it may be urged that this view leaves out the consideration of the poor lawyer instead of the poor client, and the poor lawyer awaiting for a case cannot afford to take it and await the result This begs the ques- tion. The poor lawyer anxious for business can receive no share until the judgment is obtained and collected, and so he might have as well agreed to prosecute for a reasonable fee to be paid when the fruits of the suit are realized. Another thing: a lawyer treating with a poor or impoverished client for a share in the result of the litigation as his compensation, occupies a position where he can, and generally does, drive a hard bargain. The poor client, on account of his poverty, is at his mercy, and his mercy is regulated by the same feeling which influences the money lender. It is that mercy which in the latter case has called from the legislature the enactment of stringent. laws against usury. The result of permitting lawyers to agreewith their client for a part of the property, or damages recovered, usually has, and will result in lawyers getting extravagant compensation, and out of all proportion to the services performed, where the suit terminates favorably. That which is above a just compensation-is something which the lawyer has taken from his client for nothing, and his retention of it is wrong in morals, whatever may be' his legal right to it. No one knows it better than he, and it cannot have other than a deleterious effect upon his character, lessening his sense of the dignity of his profes- sion, and placing a blight and stain upon his manhood. HA man can bear a world's contempt when he has that within him that says he is worthy. But when he contemns himself, there burns the hell . Every violation of the long-established, well-understood code of legal ethics has its effect upon the profession at large. lt detracts from their usefulness, it undermines the confidence of the people in their honestlf and iH'ECgi'i13y, and gives to the tongue of slander a poisoned shaft against the character of the whole body of lawyers. Phe inducement to planting the suit is different. ln the one C ' - - . . . 356 he acts after CX-3m1HHf1OH and deliberation, and after lie is