Lawyers and Law Practice. himself of his ovvn remuneration. Nothing is allowed to him for thought and care, and experience and professional learning, but he is allowed for " preparing instructions to counsel," "attending counsel with in structions," " attending conference with coun sel," " copying documents for counsel," and even for " drawing " pleadings which he in structs counsel to " settle," although settling really means drawing. Thus at every step the attorney's own remuneration depends on his employing counsel. But a more im portant fact in this regard is this : that by taking counsel's opinion at every stage he is relieved from responsibility. In an action against an attorney for negligence or igno rance in the bringing or conduct of a cause (say for mistake as to the form of action, or of the pleadings, or the insufficiency of the documentary evidence), it is sufficient for him to show that he acted on the opinion of counsel. He may be a man of great ex perience and social consequence, but that will avail him nothing, whereas by acting on the opinion of some mere stripling " at the bar " he would have been relieved from re sponsibility. This principle applies also to conveyancing, and all other branches of legal business in England, making it in all things to the advantage of the attorney to think little of himself and much of counsel, to in struct himself in everything, and entrust counsel with everything. But the most serious objection to the English system is the irresponsibility of counsel, for this evil is moral as well as financial. As a rule, English counsel are gentlemen, and men of- the highest moral tone. And it is the system, rather than the men that is to blame for the present state of things. No amount of learning or integrity can enable a man to be in more than one place at once, but it happens every day in London, during the term or sittings, that the same counsel is engaged in three, or four, or even more cases, all of which are being tried at the same time in as many different
257
courts. I have frequently known men like Mr. Charles Russell (now Lord Russell), or Sir Richard Webster, have as many as four causes on trial at the same time in as many different courts, giving perhaps some meas-. ure of attention to all, cross-examining an important witness in one, " opening " in a second, "replying" in a third, taking an im portant objection in a fourth; or confining himself all the time to one case, and leaving all the rest to the care of his juniors. I re member one casein which the late Mr. J. P. Benjamin, Q. C., was briefed as leading counsel for defendant with two juniors. The hearing lasted four or five days, but Mr. Benjamin never once came into court, for he had three or four other cases going on at the same time in other courts, and to one of them only (an appeal in the House of Lords), he devoted his personal attention, leaving the others to his juniors; yet in all these cases, as in every such case, the absent counsel received the same fees as if he had been present every moment, and as " further consultation" or "refresher" could be marked on the brief of any of the juniors without marking the absent leader's brief also, with still heavier fees. It would not be easy to obviate this difficulty without a thorough change of the system. Counsel do not know, when briefs are delivered, at what precise day or time the case may be reached, or what other cases may then be on trial in other courts. In the chancery courts the leading counsel attach themselves to a par ticular court, and never go out of it except on special retainer, or to follow their own cases into the court of appeal, and thus they avoid the danger of clashing; and though I think something like this might be done in the courts of law, nothing of the kind is done now, or has ever been done, for all actions are brought in one court (the high court of judicature), and the distribution of them for trial among the several sitting courts is the business of the " masters " who know only from day to day what judges are available
