LAWYER'S CHARGES.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3044, 29 March 1881, Page 2

LAWYER'S CHARGES.

[To the Editor of the Daily Teeeghujh.] Sih, —The newspapers throughout the colony have lately been much exercised upon the subject of the enormity of the charges to which unfortunate clients are subjected in legal proceedings, and both in leading articles and correspondence columns the members of the legal profession have been stigmatised as a class who are nothing more nor less than a legalised band of plunderers. At the present moment I do not happen to have before me any of the numerous indictments which have been preferred against us, but as one of the defendants who cannot plead guilty to the charges, I wish to direct the attention of those who may feel interested in this subject to a few considerations which may well influence them before joining in a wholesale condemnation of the legal profession. I do not propose to enter iuto the merits of any particular cases which have been specified. A short time ago a taxed bill ot costs was published, which showed that over £7 had been charged and allowed for the recovery of about £10. Tbe bill was not mine, and the practitioner whose it was could probably give very satisfactory reasons for adopting the particular course of precedure that he employed. But even supposing, for the sake ot argument, that such a bill of charges was monstrous, it seems to me to be a complete non sequitur that the legal profession as a class are the grasping extortioners which the writers of these attacks assume. In this provincial district I have heard of a medical man charging some £60 in a case in which £20 would, in the opinion of outsiders, have been a very handsome remuneration. I have heard of a very respected merchant whose commissions and other charges against his client (a sbeepfarmer) amounted to 18 per cent. I have heard of bankers who in hard times have bowed a customer out with many smiles and promises, and who has immediately afterwards directed their clerks to dishonor the next cheque of that customer. And I know that the profits made by tradesmen generally in this town upon articles for which they are paid are enormous. I might, therefore, with as much reason as the accusers of the legal profession, say, your merchants, your medical men, your tradesmen, all are alike; they extract the uttermost farthiDg, and why should we not do likewise. But this is not at all the position I wish to take. One of the articles to which I have alluded (I think it is in the Lyttelton Times) asks the legal profession to meet the question fairly for its own sake. I for one am quite prepared to do so, and am also free to confess that it is a question beset with many difficulties. And one of the greatest difficulties is this: that the service rendered by the lawyer is one which the generality of men find it hard to recognise. At the end of a protracted litigation (for it is against charges in contentious business that the present onset is made, and it \s with thege I am

now dealing) the unsuccessful client stands aghast at the charges made by the solicitor for his opponent and himself. He quite forgets that if he had told his own lawyer the true state of tbe case at tbe outset he would have been saved all these expenses. He does not recollect the hours and days of his adviser's time that he has occupied with vain repetitions of his story, and if he does he cannot understand that that time ought to be paid for quite as much as a chest of tea from his grocer's or a sirloin of beef from his butcher's. Directly a man gets into any trouble he rushes off to his' lawyer. So soon as that lawyer's bill comes in he growls. He has been saved from making a fool of himself by the advice given. Well he can see that now, and he does not suppose he would ever have carried out his first intentions. Anyhow, Mr Smith's charge of a guinea is monstrous, and he will write to the p?pers about it. On the other hand he is not saved from making a fool of himself. He tells a distorted story, and against his lawyers advice plunges into litigation, insists on every technical advantage being taken against his opponent, fails eventually, and then blames bis lawyers. And though no doubt it is the duty of a lawyer absolutely to decline to prosecute cases which he knows must ultimately involve his client in enormous expense without any adequate advantage, my experience teaches me that there are many cases where it is almost impossible to discern from the client's statement what is likely to be the ultimate result. I venture to assert that for one case where protracted and expensive litigation is caused by the greed of an unscrupulous lawyer there are ninety-nine where it is the fault of the clients themselves. _ With a pretty extensive acquaintance with the legal practitioners of this colony, I venture to assert that the large majority of the profession endeavour to prevent litigation. It is a very simple matter anywhere to find out who are the vultures in tbe profession, and if people will not take the trouble' to do this they must expect to be pounced upon. In every town in the colony there are plenty of men who will do their business well, and who will not overcharge them. I have, Sir, however, rather let my pen run away with me, and have wandered from the immediate question—that of the charges in contentious business. My position is this. 1 admit that, even taking into consideration the difficulties created by clients themselves, and making all other reasonable allowances, the costs of an ordinary action seem to be preposterous. But I deny that that is the lawyer's fault. He does his work. He has to go through what is to my mind a perfectly ridiculous form of procedure, but if he does not do so his client goes to the wall. The lawyer's business is to tell his client the law, and to conduct the case according to law. If he does for his client what the law requires he is entitled to be paid for it. If be does more and charges for it he is a swindler, and the judges ought to prohibit him from practising. Ihe conclusion to which all I have said tends is that the present system of procedure in contentious business is very faulty. That is my opinion as a legal practitioner of Borne experience. I shall read with great interest the debates upon the report of the Judicial Commission which will I presume, be presented at the next session of Parliament. A great simplification of legal procedure might be easily effected. The judges might do so if they did not consider themselves so absolutely bound to adhere to precedents in the face of reason. But it is the Legislature which is most to blame. A real Law Amendment Act, giving judges powers which they do not at present conceive they have, would do away with a vast amount of the technicalities which now cause expense, but which are in reality absolutely superfluous. lam curious to see what the Judicial Commission will say. I may be permitted to doubt whether (if they were desirous so to do) they could curtail the main items in bills of costs in legal proceedings. Those are, first, in cases of trials, witnesses expenses, always a very heavy item, and considered by the client as part of the gross extortion of the lawyer ; secondly, the charges for time occupied by the client, who imagines that bis business is the one thing his lawyer has to attend to, and third, counsel's fees. To Mr- \ gets three hundred guineas in a case alluded to in one of the articles I have , mentioned, how can you prevent it ? Mr —— has attained an eminence in the profession which enables him to say, "My fee is three hundred guineas." If the client chooses to pay that he has only himself to blame. If he does not like the price let him go to Mr —— at twenty guineas. You might as well try to prevent Patti or Nilsson receiving more than £10 per night for their operatic performances. I conclude, were the depredations of the lawyers so general and successful as is asserted, it would naturally be supposed that many of them would retire from their profession wealthy men. I can remember large fortunes realised in this colony by sheep farmers, land speculators, bankers, merchants, and others — men whose average ability and industry would compare very unfavorably with the average lawyer or medical man ; but I cannot recall one instance of anything above a moderate competence being realised by any member of either the legal or medical profession. That I may be able without robbing the public to retire within a few years with such competence is the desire of yours, &c, Lex. Napier, March 29,1881.