_III-*"-_—-
The Editor's Bag standards. In some cases the committee probably felt that the subjects were sufliciently covered elsewhere in the Code by general admonitions. For ex ample. Canons 12 and 13 (A. B. A.) relating to lawyers’ fees have been
rejected, and the following declaration has
been
substituted,
which
follows
the American Bar Association Code only where we have italicized the words, and which will probably be conceded to set forth a high ideal of professional duty: A just and adequate compensation for
legal services is essential to the independence and efficiency of the Bar. Eflective provision for the administration of justice is properly one of the heaviest charges of the government and the use of such provision is necessarily costly to litigants. The cost of litigation is a necessary check to the evil of litigiousness. In fixing fees lawyers should avoid charges which overestimate their advice and services, as well as those which undervalue them. While the amount of compensation is ordinarily within the reasonable discretion of the lawyer making the charge, yet the close fiduciary relation between himself and his client calls for the keenest sense of honor and firm re straint of self-interest in the exercise of this discretion. The client is entitled to a full understanding as to the basis on which the expected com pensation will be computed, and the im position on the client of unforeseen or un expected charges is inconsistent with the mutual confidence which underlies pro fessional employment, and is utterly in defensible as against indigent or ignorant persons, or those imperfectly acquainted with our language. The reasonable requests of brother lawyers,
and of their widows and orphans without ample means, should receive special and kindly consideration. It is the duty of the Bar in appropriate
instances to protect the indigent and helpless from oppression, and each lawyer should share as occasion requires in the performance of this duty. In such case he may properly charge a reasonable fee in the event of a suc cessful issue, but the poverty of a client may never justify a lawyer in purchasing an
_—_-.l_
253
interest in the subject-matter of the litigation or in stipulating for an extortionate fee on the basis of a wagering percentage of its profits. In fixing fees it should never be forgotten that the profession is a branch of the adminis Iration of justice and not a mere money-getting trade.
New matter is added in the form of a denunciation of “seeking extor tionate settlements through abuse of
legal process,” which strengthens Canon 31 of the national code, an express
assertion of the inviolability of pro fessional communications, and a state ment at some length of the duty of thorough examination of witnesses in preparation for the trial of the cause. Matter of local bearing, treating of the
Grievance Committee in each county, is introduced.
Apart from these modi
fications, the committee has desired to
emphasize the importance of the bar as a part of the system for administering
justice, and in like manner emphasis is laid upon the lawyer's firm discharge of his duties both to the court and to his client, duties which are “not distinct, but complementary, constituting the
fundamental duty of fidelity to the lawyer’s trust," and there is also possibly greater emphasis on the duties of the
lawyer as a citizen than in the American Bar Association Code. The Connecticut State Bar Associa tion seems to have acted on the theory that there was no special obligation
to adopt the American Bar Association Code.
There is, however, something
to be said for the advantage of having it in force in all the states. It would tend to unite bodies of lawyers in widely separated parts of the country into closer sympathy with one another's professional aspirations, and would strengthen the feeling that they are members of one national bar, cherishing no pride of sectional prejudice. The
American Bar Association Code has
