The English and American Bar in Contrast. would imply. A client only measures the value of a lawyer by the successful result he may have occasioned. A solicitor, who understands the law and facts of the case, does appreciate the skill of a lawyer and advocate, although he may be unsuccessful in any particular instance. Where a stan dard such as I have shown prevails in the United States is set up and acted upon for the purpose of judging of a lawyer's effi ciency, it is not the most learned and ablest lawyer who succeeds best, but the most unprincipled. Certain lines of Ben Jonson were perhaps applicable in England two hundred years ago; but I think many Americans to-day approve of the sentiment contained in the following couplet as applied to legal practitioners in their own country : "Good works wonders now and then: Here lies a lawyer, — an honest man."
I cannot help thinking your learned con tributor underestimates the probity of Eng lish lawyers, and overestimates that of his brethren in the United States. He lays too little stress upon the fact that every client in England who objects to his solicit or's charges may have the bill referred to a taxing-master. From my experience, I do not think the bills of costs of English law yers are, as a rule, higher than those which clients have to pay on your side of the At lantic. Indeed, from one experience I am inclined to admit that Lord Brougham's definition of a lawyer — "a gentleman who rescues your estate from your enemies and keeps it for himself" — is more strictly true in America than in England. I refer to a case where a prominent lawyer in one of your great cities made a charge of $750 for a few searches in the Probate Court, and for having sent (in all probability) some one from his office into court to make a motion. I have seen cases, and heard of others in the United States, where attorneys have most flagrantly " plunged their clients into needless litigation." As an example, a lawyer is appearing for a client at one of
495
the municipal courts. The judgment goes against his client, who is immediately ad vised by his counsel to appeal to the Su preme Court. When the case again comes on for hearing, the counsel, with the supremest indifference, advises his unfortunate client to plead guilty, or fights a sham battle to save appearances. I have never known practice of a similar kind to be followed in the United Kingdom, and I am not aware that even when cases are appealed the ex pense is great, considering the importance of the facts involved, nor that it is relatively greater here than in America. We have long since grown tired of " exceptions." We find that an appeal is the simplest way of testing the validity of a judgment; and where is the utility of reserving exceptions, when an application for a new trial may as well be made? The cases in which a new trial is granted are practically the same here as in Massachusetts. And here also, as in Mas sachusetts, we do not speak of a " calendar of causes at issue," but of the Trial List. Judging by the article of your learned con tributor, it does not seem that pleading in the alternative is allowed in all the States of the Union. It is allowed, however, in Massachusetts, and I scarcely think Bos ton or English lawyers who consider the interests of their clients are apt to find fault with an arrangement which spares their clients the costs of two suits; and I am sure there, as well as here, many unjust actions are defeated, and much time spared to the public, under a system of Pleading which allows interrogatories and discovery of documents. Our conveyancing is now, perhaps, simpler than yours. For example, in Massachusetts, at least, the four cove nants — right to convey, freedom from incumbrance, quiet possession, and further assurance — are always inserted in a War ranty Deed. We get rid of these covenants by simply stating that the grantor conveys as " beneficial owner." Then, how much injustice is still done in your courts by the law of "variance" as it now stands,
