"The January number of the 'Bulletin' with your good old 'Thank you' was received with interest, and referring to the 'You' on page 1, will say that it has occurred to me at times that a good special feature for the League annual program would be an afternoon or evening session convened as a general experience meeting; that is to say, to have a number of members agree in advance to use five or ten minutes explaining some practical experience they have had, either with a law list, agency, attorney, or any other branch of the commercial law field or service. A portion of the time afterwards might be devoted to a general discussion. This suggestion is made in reply to the standing appeal for something practical, and it would give the entire convention an opportunity to do on a large or general scale or plan, what is now being done by groups in the hotel rotunda or upon the porch. How does this appeal to you? I esteem you sincerity and frankness and if there is in your opinion, which I value, nothing to it, no harm has been done and all I ask is that you give me credit for one suggestion. With kind regards, I am "Bully good Bulletin, that February one. Nearly as good as I could have done. WM. C. SPRAGUE, Detroit, Mich." The following article from Mr. Corydon Rood of Loveland, Colo., indicates the feeling of commercial lawyers in the smaller cities and towns where free reports are continually being asked for and nothing given in return. Commercial Law League of America. February 17, 1913. I notice that the February Bulletin contains several suggestions concerning law lists, and I am pleased to know that there are others besides myself who feel that they are being unfairly treated and are beginning to seek some relief through the medium of the League which always stands for the "square deal." To my mind it is not so much the fault of the reputable law lists that the lawyer who subscribes for and obtains membership in is not treated fairly in the matter of business, but it is with the unfair jobber or dealer with whom such lists are placed. They seem to have no conscientious scruples about taking the lawyer's time (which to the busy one is a very valuable asset) to answer requests for reports as to the credit and financial standing of existing and prospective customers, with the usual promise of business in return as compensation. This promise is the alluring snare which catches us all. It is usually an empty one, made with a mental reservation, and when the time comes when it could be kept, and that it might be possible to "put a little water upon the wheel" of such correspondent by placing in his hands some collection or other business, the law list is not again referred to but the claim or business is at once placed with some local attorney who, if he is within reaching distance of the debtor and the claim sufficiently large to indicate a fairly decent fee will look after it in person or through some clerk in his office, or if it is a small, doubtful matter and one which will require much effort to collect, will forward upon a division of fees to some attorney on the ground floor (where it should have gone in the first instance) frequently lodging in the hands of some one other than the one who has been so systematically worked for reports, or the merchant or jobber may place it with some collection agency or often with an adjustment bureau most of which attempt to go outside the legitimate and enter the field as commercial or collection agencys. The live wire, the attorney who strives to keep in touch with credit conditions and make reports promptly and in detail, ought surely to be the one in all fairness to whom such business could be entrusted, and who knowing conditions will usually give as good or better service than an outsider, especially when he has the incentive of a small fee without having to split it with some one else. The question is, how can the publishers of law lists correct these evils? Unless relief can be had from some source, bar associations will in many places take the matter in hand and fix an adequate charge for a reporting service. I have also had some experience with another class of unfair forwarders (not always an attorney) who after placing a claim in my hands against one going into bankruptcy has filed the claim direct with the referee, without being courteous enough to so advise me until after I had prepared and sent proof of claim for execution. I have recently adopted the plan in making reports, of enclosing a printed slip with the report asking that my name be kept in mind for future business. How it will work has not yet been demonstrated, but I am keeping tab on the unfair concerns and such information as they get out of my office will be compensated for in some way. Let's keep up the agitation until those most interested look at it from a standpoint of fairness and justice. Yours very truly, CORYDON ROOD. NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION. Committee on Professional Ethics. In answering questions this Committee acts by virtue of the following provisions: "This Committee will be empowered when consulted to advise inquirers respecting questions or proper professional conduct, reporting its action to the Board of Directors from time to time."' QUESTION. "A," an attorney, represents two creditors of "C," and is desirous of filing a petition in bankruptcy against "C." "A" knows that "B," an attorney, represents a third creditor of “C,” and suggests to "B" that "B" should have his client join with "A's" clients in signing and filing the petition in bankruptcy. This was done under an arrangement between "A" and "B" with the knowledge of the clients, that if "A" represents the receiver in bankruptcy, the fees which "A" thus receives will be divided between "A" and "B." Is this considered unethical? I should like to have this question answered entirely irrespective of whether "B" is to do any work or not in connection with the receivership. ANSWER. The Committee does not express any view at present as to the propriety of an attorney for petitioning creditors assuming also to represent the receiver and thus sustain two-fold obligations that may conflict; yet, since in this district the Federal Court itself undertakes to safeguard by its special order under Rule 20 the propriety of such representation in each particular case, we are of the opinion that the facts recited in the question do not alone constitute unethical conduct. QUESTION. A lawyer who states that he has had great difficulty in securing testimony in behalf of his client from lawyers as to the value of legal services, in a litigation between the client and a former lawyer, involving that value, has applied to the Association to designate lawyers who will act as expert witnesses in his case. His application has suggested the formulation of the following question: Is it the ethical duty of a lawyer, when called on to give testimony as an expert witness concerning the value of legal services, to testify as a witness giving his opinion of such value on a proper question submitted to him, in a litigation where it is charged that another lawyer has greatly overcharged the latter's client, or may any number of lawyers who are appealed to give testimony respecting the value of such services, the nature and extent of which are not in dispute, decline to testify on the ground that they do not care to express an opinion adverse to a charge made by another lawyer and which is in litigation? ANSWER. We are of the opinion that mere considerations of courtesy of fraternity should not deter members of the legal profession from testifying in respect to the value of legal services, when it is contended that a lawyer has overcharged or attempted to overcharge a client, and the controversy is the subject of litigation. QUESTION. Is it the opinion of the Committee that an attorney, who has received a retainer, but who has no express agreement with his client for his compensation, may properly notify his client, upon the eve of trial for which he has made preparation, that he will not appear at the trial, nor proceed further with the suit, nor consent to the substitution of another attorney, nor release any of the client's papers in his possession and essential to the proper trial of the action, unless his client pays or secures to his satisfaction the payment of a bill which he has rendered, and which he deems reasonable compensation for his services to the date of his conditional refusal to proceed further in the cause? ANSWER. The suggested conduct of an attorney upon the eve of the trial of the case for which he had been retained is unethical and should be condemned. Personals. LOUISIANA CENTENARY. The one hundredth anniversary of the organization and establishment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana will be celebrated on Saturday, March 1st. The ceremony will take place in the Supreme Court chambers on the top floor of the new courthouse in the presence of the judges of the various courts in the parish of Orleans, the district magistrates throughout the state, and very likely a number of justices from Supreme Courts from other states. An invitation has been extended the judiciary in general as well as city and state officials and members of the Louisiana Bar Association. The worthy treasurer of the C. L. L. A., W. O. Hart, is chairman of the Publicity Committee. He very graciously secured an invitation for the president of the League. The physical law forbidding a solid body being in two places at one time alone prevented acceptance. The League membership appreciate the honor thus conferred. Julius Henry Cohen, of New York, has put in a strenuous and inspiring fall and winter. The Survey and other periodicals, as well as the daily press, have told of his success in bringing industrial order out of chaos in the garment`making trade. His "protocal" and preferential shop ideas are bound to bring employer and employes into a mutual working agreement. Mr. Cohen stands for constructive statesmanship in industry. He has attained unto the place which lawyers everywhere and always should be proud to occupythat of leading and moulding community thought and shaping it into action for the common weal. Mr. Wm. G. Bryant, of the firm of Clark, Lockwood, Bryant & Klein, Detroit, Michigan, called at the secretary's office while passing through Chicago. Mr. Rector C. Hill, of Ottawa, Illinois, recently made an address before the citizens of Streator, Illinois, in behalf of the commission form of government. From an editorial in the Streator Daily Independent-Times was well received by Streator citizens. The following members have called at the office of the president. It is always a delight to receive these calls, to exchange views on League matters and suggestions as to the convention program. Alexander, E. M., Donnelly, E. E., Feibleman, Isidore, Furst, W. S., Hart, W. O., Jacobs, Henry A., Landis, John C., Jr., Manier, Wm. R., Mosier, John H., Murphy, T. A., Petersberger, Isaac, Sprague, Wm. C., Milwaukee, Wis. Mr. Thomas R. Tillott, Jr., of Schnectady, N. Y., has removed his offices from the Parker Building to the Myers Block, 271 State street, that city. Announcement is made of the dissolution of the law firm of Whitfield & Coan, in which Ralph A. Coan retires from the firm, and F. H. Whitfield retains his location and business. The law lists are taken over by Mr. Coan, who will continue to enlarge upon the commercial law practice; while Mr. Whitfield will continue the general practice of law, giving especial attention to corporation, probate, real estate matters and trial work, and will continue to represent and handle business of his large circle of eastern friends and clients. ATTORNEY-WHO IS MEMBER BAR OF MASS., N. Y., ILL. AND UNITED STATES Supreme Court, and has a good practice, would like to join some large law firm, where they would like a member having large experience in diplomacy and adjusting corporation matters. Address, care of Bulletin. The firm of C. J. Ellis & C. J. Ellis, Jr., has been organized at Rayville, Louisiana, for the general practice of law. The law firm of Bicksler, Bennett, Dana & Blount, of Denver, Colorado, has been dissolved by mutual consent. Mr. J. H. Dana and Mr. G. Dexter Blount will continue the business of the old firm under the firmn name of Dana & Blount, with offices in the same building. Mr. W. S. Bicksler, who has been in charge of the Los Angeles office of the above frm, has formed a partnership with Mr. Wellington C. Smith. for many years a member of the law firm of Van Deman, Burkhart & Smith of Dayton, Ohio. The new firm at Los Angeles will be known as Bicksler & Smith, with offices in the Title Insurance Building. Mr. Edmond G. Bennet, formerly of the above firm, is now located at Pasadena, California, where he is engaged in the general practice of law in the Chamber of Commerce Building, that city. Mr. Bennett will have associated with him in the same office Mr. George P. Cary, formerly assistant general attorney for the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, and Mr. Samuel S. Hinds, formerly of the firm of Hoadley, Lauterbach & Johnson, of New York City. Mr. James C. Little, of Raleigh, North Carolina, has introduced into legislature of his state a bill for the purpose of amending the constitution of that state so as to give the governor the veto power. Mr. Little is a member of the Commercial Law League. Mrs. Wm. O. Hart has been appointed as a delegate to the state convention of the Daughters of the Fvolution, which will be held at Shreveport, Louisiana, March 25th and 26th. Mr. Edmund L. Craig, of Evansville, Indiana, called at the secretary's office while attending the convention of the Fraternal Insurance Lawyers. Mr. William S. Furst, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has removed his office to 91723 New Philadelphia Stock Exchange Building, Walnut street west of Broad. Mr. Vance Stewart, of El Paso, Texas, announces the formation of a partnership between himself and Mr. Shannon. The firm will be known as Stewart & Shannon with offices in the American Bank Building, El Paso. Mr. C. T. Edgar, of Wausau, Wisconsin, announces that he has opened new offices on the second floor of the Record-Herald Building (opposite Post Office) for the practice of law. For the previous three years he was engaged in the practice of commercial law n charge of the collection department of the Wausau Law and Land Association. Mr. A. C. Beeman, of Cherokee, Oklahoma, announces the formation of a partnership with Mr. H. C. Kirkendall. Mr. Kirkendall is a recent graduate of the Oklahoma State University. The new firm will be known as Beeman & Kirkendall. Messrs. Gates & Emery, of Seattle, Washington, announce that their collection. department been placed under the personal supervision of Mr. Chester Ellinwood, one c the new members of the Commercial Law League. WANTED-BRIGHT, COMPETENT YOUNG MAN WITH EXPERIENCE IN COLLECtion department, modern commercial law office in rapidly growing City in Oklahoma. The firm of Mollette & Clements, of Durango, Colorado, has recently been formed by Mr. A. Rex Mollette and Mr. Robert S. Clements. The new firm will have offices at 201 Century Building, Durango. The well known firm of Van Deman, Burkhart & Smith, of Dayton, Ohio, has been dissolved, Mr. Wellington C. Smith having withdrawn from the firm and removed to Los Angeles, California, where he has associated himself with Mr. W. S. Bicksler. Mr. Edward E. Burkhart, of the former firm, who is a former recording secretary of the League and served as mayor of the City of Dayton for four years, has formed a partnership with Mr. Charles Heald, formerly associated with the firm of Van Deman, Burkhart & Smith. The new firm will be known as Burkhart & Heald, with offices in the Schwind Building. - In response to a notice in the February Bulletin, Mr. Henry W. Stackpole, of Clay Center, Kansas, has completed the files of the Commercial Law League Bulletin, with the exception of the August number of the 1905 Bulletins, which we are still shy, in order to make our Bulletin files complete. Will each of our members make a diligent search to locate the August, 1905, Bulletin and forward it to the secretary in order that our Bulletin files may be complete in every detail. It is hoped that many of our members will pattern after Mr. Stackpole and keep complete files of the Bulletins, which contain much valuable information for commercial lawyers. Mr. W. S. Furst, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, while on a business trip to Chicago, called at the secretary's office. Mr. Benj. F. Heaton, of Fort Wayne, Indiana, chairman of the Membership Committee, called on Secretary Kreamer and unfolded his plans for increasing the membership. Mr. Heaton solicits the assistance of every member. We are requested to publish the following as bar rates which have been adopted by the Anniston (Alabama) Bar Association, from which our members will note that this rate is somewhat higher than the uniform rate adopted by the Commercial Law League. The action on the part of this Bar Association is only one of the many which will be passed unless the uniform rate of the Commercial Law League is more generally adopted by its members. Anniston, Alabama, February 5, 1913. The undersigned, members of the bar at Anniston, Alabama, hereby agree to, and adopt the following minimum schedule of charges for commercial collections; on claims collected without suit brought: 10% on the first $300. 7% on amounts over $300 to $1,000. Where suit or litigation is necessary there shall be an additional allowance of fees as may be reasonable under the circumstances of each case. C. H. YOUNG, W. C. TUNSTALL, JR., BLACKWELL & AGEE, (Signed) BLACKMON, MERRILL & WALKER, O. M. ALEXANDER, J. F. CREEN, CHAS. D. KLINE, A. F. McGHEE, RUTHERFORD LAPSLEY, T. C. SENSABAUGH, WILLETT & WILLETT, H. D. MCCARTY, A. B. SAWYER, J. F. MATTHEWS, R. Y. STREET, Mr. John B. Morgan, formerly of Leetonia, Ohio, has removed to Youngstown, Ohio, where he has opened offices at 1103-4 Mahonig Bank Building. Mr. W. F. Hall, of Cordele, Georgia, announces the formation of a partnership with Mr. J. W. Dennard under the firm name of Hall & Dennard. Mr. Alfred Yankauer, of the firm of Yankauer & Davidson, New York City, called at League headquarters during the month. Mr. Will M. Peterson, of Pendleton, Oregon, announces the dissolution of the partnership of Peterson & Wilson, Mr. Wilson having removed to Portland A new firm, composed of Mr. Peterson and Mr. G. H. Bishop, to be known as Peterson & Bishop, has been formed for the general practice of law. Mr. Edward S. Stewart, of Denver, Colorado, announces the formation of a partnership with Messrs. Frank England and Charles F. Morris under the firm name of England, Morris & Stewart, with offices in the Continental Building, Denver. The firm of Tyson, Wilson & Martin, of Montgomery, Alabama, has been dissolved. Mr. W. L. Martin and Mr. Thomas W. Martin have formed a partnership under the firm name of Martin & Martin. The firm of Lapsley & Arnold, of Anniston, Alabama, has been dissolved by mutual consent. Mr. Rutherford Lapsley has succeeded to the commercial practice of the firm in the same offices. Mr. Jos. J. Arnold is now a member of the firm of Tate & Arnold. |