cult as well as delicate question for a lawyer to pronounce upon the standing of a profes sional brother. The most that can be done is to call gentlemen to say what they would have considered reasonable for such services, had they been performed by themselves. Some may testify up to a very high point, from an excusable, though foolish vanity; others to a very low one, from the despicable desire of attracting custom to a cheap shop.1 No one can ever have seen such a cause tried without feeling, that the Bar had received by it an impulse downwards in the eyes of bystanders and the community. The case is thrown into the jury-box, to be decided at haphazard, according as the twelve men may chance to think or feel. He who narrowly watches such controversies, cannot fail to see that the right of a counsel to enforce his claim for legal compensation is far from being calculated to protect the client from oppression and extortion.

1 That evidence of usage is admissible to show what is the rule of compensation for similar services to those sued for, see Vilas v. Downer, 21 Vermont 424; Bodfish Fox, 23 Maine 94.

It is not worth while, however, to quarrel with the decision. Let us inquire rather what should be the course of counsel, without regard to it. He certainly owes it to his profession, as well as himself, that when the client has the ability, his services should be recompensed; and that according to a liberal standard.1 There are many cases, in which it will be his duty, perhaps more properly his privilege, to work for nothing. It is to be hoped, that the time will never come, at this or any other Bar in this country, when a poor man with an honest cause, though without a fee, cannot obtain the services of honorable counsel, in the prosecution or defence of his rights. But it must be an extraordinary-a very peculiar case that will justify an attorney in resorting to legal proceedings, to enforce the payment of fees. It is better that he should be a loser,

1 Concerning the pleader's salary, says the Mirror, chap. 2, sect. 5, "four things are to be regarded: 1. The greatness of the cause. 2. The pains of the serjeant. 3. His worth, as his learning, eloquence, and gift. 4. The usage of the court."

than have a public contest upon the subject with a client. The enlightened Bar of Paris, have justly considered the character of their order involved in such proceedings; and although by the law of France, an advocate may recover for his fees by suit, yet they regard it as dishonorable, and those who should attempt to do it, would be immediately stricken from the roll of attorneys.1

1 Les lois et les docteurs, les anciennes ordonnances et plusieurs anciens arrêts donnent aux avocats une action pour le paiement de leurs honoraires: mais, suivant la dernière jurisprudence du Parlement de Paris et la discipline actuelle du barreau, on ne souffre point qu'un avocat intente une telle action. 1 Dupin, Profession d'Avocat 110. Il est possible, que l'usage ne soit qu'un préjugé; mais ce préjugé a eu une salutaire influence sur la splendeur du barreau Français. On ne prétend pas, en France, qu'un avocat n'a pas droit à un honoraire pour prix de ses travaux. Jamais on n'a refusé d'en allouer à ceux qui en ont réclamé. Dans plusieurs barreaux, ces réclamations sont même tolerées. Mais le barreau de Paris s'est montré plus sévère; et non seulement autrefois, mais encore aujourd'hui, tout avocat à la cour qui actionnerait un client en paiement d'honoraires serait rayé du tableau. Du reste, s'il est defendu d'exiger, est permis de recevoir tout ce que le client veut bien

Regard should be had to the general usage of the profession, especially as to the rates of commission to be charged for the collection of undefended claims. Except in this class of cases, agreements between counsel and client that the compensation of the former shall depend upon final success in the lawsuit-in other words contingent fees-however common such agreements may be, are of a very dangerous tendency, and to be declined in all ordinary cases. In making his charge, after the business committed to him has been completed, as an attorney may well take into consideration the general ability of his client to pay, so he may also consider the pecuniary benefit, which may have been derived from his services.

assigner pour prix aux services de son avocat, en raison de ses peines et de l'importance des travaux. Ibid. 698.

Les honoraires dûs par les parties aux avocats chargés du soin de leur défense, ne doivent pas être restreints à la taxe établie par la tarif. Cette taxe a pour objet seulement de fixer la somme dûe par la partie qui succombe, et non d'apprecier les soins de l'avocat, appreciation qui doit etre faite selon l'importance et la difficulté du travail. Ibid. 699.

For a poor man, who is unable to pay at all, there may be a general understanding that the attorney is to be liberally compensated in case of success. What is objected to, is an agreement to receive a certain part or proportion of the sum or subject-matter, in the event of a recovery, and nothing otherwise.

It is unnecessary to inquire here whether such a contract is void as champertous, and contrary to public policy. None of the English statutes on the subject of champerty have been reported as in force here; but it was once a question whether it was not an offence at common law, independently altogether of any statute enactment. Enlightened judges in several of our sister states have so considered it. "The purchase of a lawsuit," says Chancellor Kent, "by an attorney, is champerty in its most odious form; and it ought equally to be condemned on principles of public policy. It would lead to fraud, oppression, and corruption. As a sworn minister of the courts of justice, the attorney ought not to be permitted to avail himself of the knowledge he acquires