Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 09.pdf/309

 Rh

LONDON LEGAL LETTER. LONDON, May i, 1897. THE Society of Comparative Legislation has, in the sec ond part of the first volume of its proceedings, which has just been issued, given to it» members the result of the inquiries into the method of legal remuneration in contentious matters in various parts of the world. These inquiries have been prosecuted in twenty-five States and countries, and the result, which has been most carefully edited by Master Macdonel, of our High Court, is most en tertaining. In the endeavor to obtain as wide information as possible, certain queries, translated when necessary into French, German and Spanish, were sent to law yers of standing in Scotland, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, Spain, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Cape Colony, Australia, Bombay, Bengal, Madras, Burma, and in the States of Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Missouri and California. Answers to the interrogatories were received from the United States from Mr. Moorfield Storey of Boston and Mr. Louis D. Brandéis of the Harvard Law School; Mr. Julien T. Davies and Mr. Osgood Smith of the New York Bar; Mr. Newton Hero of the Albany Bar; Messrs. Dupee, Judah, Willard and Wolff of Chicago; Mr. Everett W. Pattisun of St. Louis, and Messrs. Rothschild and Ach of San Francisco, while Mr. Newton Crane, who after having practiced for a number of years in the United States is now a member of the English bar, explained the differences which exist in the character of the work that is undertaken by an American and an English lawyer. From the replies Master Macdonel draws the conclusion, as to the remuneration of lawyers by their clients in the countries from which reports have been received, that there are three systems : (<;) those which recogni/e no scale of costs and which leave legal remuneration to be regulated by contracts, express or implied, as in the United States and Denmark; (//) those which fix a scale of charges for each service, leaving it to the court or its officers, in the event of a dispute, to determine the amount, such as prevails in England, her colonies, and Scotland, France, Holland and Italy; and (c) those which fix the remuneration according to the value of the subject matter in dispute, the stage at which the proceedings terminate, or according as the action is contested, as in Germany. As between the parties to the action the widest differences exist. Here in England, theoretically at least, the successful litigant gets his costs, including lawyers' fees, from his adversary, while in the United States he gets nothing beyond the small court costs. It appears, however, that in no country is the successful

litigant completely indemnified for the expense he has been subjected to in the litigation. The most interesting question as to how the costs com pare is not satisfactorily answered аз there is no statement of the costs in England, and in those countries where the functions of solicitor and barrister or attorney and advocate are not united in the same person there is no indication of the amount the layman is obliged to pay for preliminary expenses before the litigation begins. Some idea, however, of the comparative cost of litigation in the different coun tries may be gathered from the following table : —•

COUNTRY.

Scotland Germany Holland Denmark Spain New York Mass. Illinois Missouri California Ontario Quebec

Action for Libel.

Action for Negligence.

Action for Breach of Promise.

¿15010 ¿160 ¿230 to ¿250 50 to

60

60 About ¿6 ¿60

35 50 80 60 60

35 20

35

12 to

to to to to

14

20 to

20

loo 160 loo loo

loo to

150

40 to 20 to

1 60 loo

50

IOO

50 70

70 50

/40 to ¿-¡0

6 30 40 lo

to to to to

8 IOO 50 50

30

From this it appears that the smallest charges are in Spain, and the highest in Scotland and the United States. Had an estimate been made for England it would have greatly exceeded the highest limit in the United States, as the fees mentioned for your country are about those which would be marked upon the briefs of the junior barrister and his leader, while at least as much more again would be charged up against the unfortunate litigant by his solicitors. It is hardly possible to give in such brief limits even an idea of the excellent and most entertaining report Master Macdonel has made on this subject. Every practicing lawyer ought to read it, and as it is so easily obtainable (it is sent gratuitously to every member of the society) there is no reason why he should not do so. 1 regret to lind, on looking through the lists, that there are only five members of the society in all the United States, and these are the Columbia University Library, the University of Michigan, the New York 1'ublic Library, the Law Association of Phila delphia and the Pratt Institute F'ree Library of Brooklyn!

STUFF GOWN.