Mr. Justice BRADLEY,
having stated the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The application made on -the first of these cases (No. 4), for an order on the respondent to pay 'money into court is in the nature of a proceeding as for a contempt. The application is based upon the power which the court has over its own officers to prevent them from, or punish them for, committing acts of dishonesty or impropriety calculated to bring contempt upon the administration of justice. For such improper ponduct the court may entertain summary proceedings by attachment against any of its officers, and may, in its discretion, punish them by fine or imprisonment, or discharge them from the functions of their offices, or require •'hem to perform their professional or official duty under pain of discharge or imprisonment. The ground of the jur 'diction thus exercised is the alleged misconduct of the officer. If an attorney have collected money,for his client, it i-
primd facie
his duty, after deducting his own costs and disbursements, to pay it over to such client; and his refusal to do this, without some good excuse, is gross misconduct and dishonesty on his part, calculated to bring discredit on the court and on the administration of justice. It is this misconduct on which the court seizes as a ground of jurisdiction to compel him to pay the money, in conformity with his professional'duty. The application against him in such cases is not equivalent to an action of debt or assumpsit, but is a quasi criminal proceeding, in which the question is not merely whether the attorney has received the money, but whether he has acted improperly and dishonestly in not paying it over. If no dishonesty appears the party will be
left to his action. The attorney may have cross demands against his client, or there may be disputes between them on the subject proper for a jury or a court of law or equity to settle. If such appear to be the case, and no professional misconduct be shown to exist, the court will not exercise its summary jurisdiction. And as the proceeding is in the nature of an attachment for a contempt, the respondent ought to be permitted to purge himself by his oath. “ If he clear himself'by his answers,” says Justice Blackstone, “the complaint is totally dismissed.”
All, then, that we are concerned 'to ascertain and decide on this motion is, whether the respondent retains the money in his hands in bad faith, and is therefore guilty of any such misconduct as will justify the court in interposing its authority in a summary way.
Upon a consideration of the facts disclosed by the answer and affidavits, the result to which the court has come, in relation to the money retained by the respondent, is, that he has not been guilty of any misconduct which calls for the exercise of summary jurisdiction. We see no reason to suppose that he is not acting in good faith; and whether his claim to the entire amount be valid or not — (a point which we are not called- upon to decide) — it is clear thgt the claim is honestly made. The case is one in which the parties should be left to the usual remedy at law, where the questions of law and fact which are mooted-between them can be more satisfactorily settled than they can be in a summary proceeding.
A good deal has been said in the argument on the question whether the respondent has, or has not, a lien on the moneys in his hands. We do not think that the decision of this motiqn depends alone on that question. For, even if he has n,ot a
Lien
coextensive with the sum received, yet if he has a fair and honest set-off, which ought in equity to be allowed by the complainant, that fact has a material bearing on the implied charge of misconduct which underlies
the motion for an order to pay over the money. And when, as in this ease, there exists a technical barrier to prevent the respondent from instituting an action against his client (for it is admitted that he cannot sue the State of Texas for any demand which he may have against it), it would seem to be against all equity to compel him to, pay over the fund, in his hands, and thus strip him of all means of bringing his claims to an issue. Whilst, on the other hand, no difficulty exists in the State instituting an action against him for money had and received, and thus bringing the legality of his demands to a final determination.
But in the judgment of the court the respondent has a lien upon the fund in his hands for at least the amount of his fees and disbursements in relation to these indemnity bonds. His original retainer by Governor Hamilton related to all the bonds indiscriminately, and much of the service rendered by him has been rendered indiscriminately in relation to them.all. With regard to the White and Chiles bonds the agreement of Governor Pease was express, that in case of recovery the respondent might retaiu his compensation out of the amount received. In England, and in several of the States, it is held that an attorney or solicitor’s lien on papers or money of his client in possession extends to the whole balance of his account for professional services. But whether that be or be not the better rule, it can hardly be contended that, in this case, it does not extend to all the fees and disbursements incurred in relation to all of these indemnity bonds. And, in this country, the distinction between attorney or solicitor and counsel is practically abolished in nearly all the States. The.lawyer in charge of a case acts both as solicitor and counsel. His services in the one. capacity and the other c.annot be well distinguished. And, as a general rule, counsel fees, as well as those of attorney or solicitor, constitute a legal demand for which an action will lie. And whilst, as between party and party in a cause, the statutory fee bill fixes the amount of costs to be recovered, as between attorney or solicitor and client a different rule obtains. The claim of the attorney or solicitor
in' the latter case, even in England, extends to all proper disbursements made in the litigation, and to the customary and usual fees for the services rendered.
The fee bill adopted by Congress in 1853 recognizes this general rule and, in fact, adopts it. By the first section of that act it is expressly declared, that nothing therein shall be construed to prohibit attorneys, solicitors, and proctors from charging tó, and receiving from, their clients, other than the government, such reasonable compensation for their services, in addition to the taxable costs, as may be in accordance with general usage' in their respective States, or may be agreed upon between the parties. .
The change in the rule relative to fees and costs has been gradually going on for a long period. In Pennsylvania, counsel fees could not be recovered in.an action so late as 1819, when the case, of
Mooney
v.
Lloyd,
was decided. But, in the subsequent case of
Foster
v. Jack, decided in 1835,
the contrary was held in a very able opinion delivered by Chief Justice Gibson. And in
Balsbaugh
v.
Frazer,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mr. Justice BRADLEY,
having stated the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The application made on -the first of these cases (No. 4), for an order on the respondent to pay 'money into court is in the nature of a proceeding as for a contempt. The application is based upon the power which the court has over its own officers to prevent them from, or punish them for, committing acts of dishonesty or impropriety calculated to bring contempt upon the administration of justice. For such improper ponduct the court may entertain summary proceedings by attachment against any of its officers, and may, in its discretion, punish them by fine or imprisonment, or discharge them from the functions of their offices, or require •'hem to perform their professional or official duty under pain of discharge or imprisonment. The ground of the jur 'diction thus exercised is the alleged misconduct of the officer. If an attorney have collected money,for his client, it i-
primd facie
his duty, after deducting his own costs and disbursements, to pay it over to such client; and his refusal to do this, without some good excuse, is gross misconduct and dishonesty on his part, calculated to bring discredit on the court and on the administration of justice. It is this misconduct on which the court seizes as a ground of jurisdiction to compel him to pay the money, in conformity with his professional'duty. The application against him in such cases is not equivalent to an action of debt or assumpsit, but is a quasi criminal proceeding, in which the question is not merely whether the attorney has received the money, but whether he has acted improperly and dishonestly in not paying it over. If no dishonesty appears the party will be
left to his action. The attorney may have cross demands against his client, or there may be disputes between them on the subject proper for a jury or a court of law or equity to settle. If such appear to be the case, and no professional misconduct be shown to exist, the court will not exercise its summary jurisdiction. And as the proceeding is in the nature of an attachment for a contempt, the respondent ought to be permitted to purge himself by his oath. “ If he clear himself'by his answers,” says Justice Blackstone, “the complaint is totally dismissed.”
All, then, that we are concerned 'to ascertain and decide on this motion is, whether the respondent retains the money in his hands in bad faith, and is therefore guilty of any such misconduct as will justify the court in interposing its authority in a summary way.
Upon a consideration of the facts disclosed by the answer and affidavits, the result to which the court has come, in relation to the money retained by the respondent, is, that he has not been guilty of any misconduct which calls for the exercise of summary jurisdiction. We see no reason to suppose that he is not acting in good faith; and whether his claim to the entire amount be valid or not — (a point which we are not called- upon to decide) — it is clear thgt the claim is honestly made. The case is one in which the parties should be left to the usual remedy at law, where the questions of law and fact which are mooted-between them can be more satisfactorily settled than they can be in a summary proceeding.
A good deal has been said in the argument on the question whether the respondent has, or has not, a lien on the moneys in his hands. We do not think that the decision of this motiqn depends alone on that question. For, even if he has n,ot a
Lien
coextensive with the sum received, yet if he has a fair and honest set-off, which ought in equity to be allowed by the complainant, that fact has a material bearing on the implied charge of misconduct which underlies
the motion for an order to pay over the money. And when, as in this ease, there exists a technical barrier to prevent the respondent from instituting an action against his client (for it is admitted that he cannot sue the State of Texas for any demand which he may have against it), it would seem to be against all equity to compel him to, pay over the fund, in his hands, and thus strip him of all means of bringing his claims to an issue. Whilst, on the other hand, no difficulty exists in the State instituting an action against him for money had and received, and thus bringing the legality of his demands to a final determination.
But in the judgment of the court the respondent has a lien upon the fund in his hands for at least the amount of his fees and disbursements in relation to these indemnity bonds. His original retainer by Governor Hamilton related to all the bonds indiscriminately, and much of the service rendered by him has been rendered indiscriminately in relation to them.all. With regard to the White and Chiles bonds the agreement of Governor Pease was express, that in case of recovery the respondent might retaiu his compensation out of the amount received. In England, and in several of the States, it is held that an attorney or solicitor’s lien on papers or money of his client in possession extends to the whole balance of his account for professional services. But whether that be or be not the better rule, it can hardly be contended that, in this case, it does not extend to all the fees and disbursements incurred in relation to all of these indemnity bonds. And, in this country, the distinction between attorney or solicitor and counsel is practically abolished in nearly all the States. The.lawyer in charge of a case acts both as solicitor and counsel. His services in the one. capacity and the other c.annot be well distinguished. And, as a general rule, counsel fees, as well as those of attorney or solicitor, constitute a legal demand for which an action will lie. And whilst, as between party and party in a cause, the statutory fee bill fixes the amount of costs to be recovered, as between attorney or solicitor and client a different rule obtains. The claim of the attorney or solicitor
in' the latter case, even in England, extends to all proper disbursements made in the litigation, and to the customary and usual fees for the services rendered.
The fee bill adopted by Congress in 1853 recognizes this general rule and, in fact, adopts it. By the first section of that act it is expressly declared, that nothing therein shall be construed to prohibit attorneys, solicitors, and proctors from charging tó, and receiving from, their clients, other than the government, such reasonable compensation for their services, in addition to the taxable costs, as may be in accordance with general usage' in their respective States, or may be agreed upon between the parties. .
The change in the rule relative to fees and costs has been gradually going on for a long period. In Pennsylvania, counsel fees could not be recovered in.an action so late as 1819, when the case, of
Mooney
v.
Lloyd,
was decided. But, in the subsequent case of
Foster
v. Jack, decided in 1835,
the contrary was held in a very able opinion delivered by Chief Justice Gibson. And in
Balsbaugh
v.
Frazer,
Chief Justice Black, delivered the opinion of the court in a series of propositions which strongly commend themselves for their good sense and just discrimination. The court there held that in Pennsylvania an attorney or counsellor may recover whatever his services are reasonably worth; that such claim, like any other which arises out of a contract, express or implied, may be defalked against an adverse demand ; that an attorney who has money in his hands, which he has recovered for his-client, may déduct his fees from the amount; that if he retain the money with a fraudulent intent the court will inflict summary punishment upon him; but if his answer to a rule against him convinces th.e court that it'was held back in good faith, and" believed not to be more than au honest compensation, the rule will be dismissed, and the client remitted to a jury trial.
In New York, counsel fees have always been recoverable on a
quantum,
meruit. In the case of
Stevens & Cagger
v.
Adams Stevens,
recovered $300 for counsel fees and $50 for maps made to be used in a cause. It was held by the court that the fee bill, which declares it unlawful to demand or charge more than therein limited, has reference only to the question of costs as between party and party, and not as between counsel and client. The arguments of Chancellor Walworth and Senators Lee and Verplank, in the Court of Errors, on the general subject, were exceedingly lucid and able, going to show that in this country the counsellor is regarded as entitled to a fair remuneration for his services, and to recover the same in an action either upon an express or implied contract. The code has since abolished the fee .bill, and left attorneys and solicitors to make their own bargains with their clients. But the courts have held that-this, change has not affected the attorney’s lien, even on the judgment recovered, for the amount which it has been agreed he shall receive. . In one case he was to receive one-half the amount to be recovered. Judgment was obtained for $1179, and the court held that the attorney had
A
lien on this judgment for his half of it, and that the defendant could not safely settle with the plaintiff without paying him.
In Texas the law has been held substantially the same. In the case of
Casey
v.
March,
it was decided that an attorney has a lien on the papers and .documents received from his client, and on money collected by him in the coursé of his profession, for the fees and disbursements on account of such claims, and for his compensation for his services in the collection of the money. If, as the respondent contends, this case is to be governed by the law of Texas, it is decidedly in favor.of his lien, at least to the extent of his services and disbursements in relation to the indemnity bonds.
As the original retainer was made in Texas, we are inclined to the opinion that the rights of the parties are to be
regulated by the laws of that-State. But if this-be not the case, this court would be guided by what it deems to be the prevailing rule in this country; and, according to this rule, we are of opinion that the respondent has a lien on the fund in his hands for his disbursements and professional fees in relation to the indemnity bonds; and that in retaining the said fund for the purpose of procuring a settlement of his claim he has done nothing to call for the summary interposition of this court.
The motion for an order in case No. 4, to compel the re-' spondent, George W. Paschal, to. pay to the clerk of this court the money received by him, is therefore denied.'
The other motion we think should be granted. The respondent,, as appears from his answer, was employed by-Governor Pease to proceed with - and Carry through the litigation relating to the 300 bonds in the hands of Peabody & Co. and Droege & Co., with a stipulation to receive
25
per cent, of the amount that might be recovered on 149 of the bonds, and 20 per cent, of the amount to be reco'. ered on the remainder. Granting it to.be true that this contra--r was definitely concluded (although there seems to have been some uncertainty as to one part of it), it canuot be seri '.uslj claimed that the complainant is so fixed and tied up by the arrangement that it-cannot change its attorney and employ such other counsel as it may see fit, always being responsible, of course, for the consequences of breaking its contract with .the respondent. Whether in discharging him the State has made itself liable for the whole contingent fee agreed upon, or. only for so much as the respondent’s actual disbursements and- services were worth up to the time of his discharge, or for nothing whatever, it is not necessary for us .to decide. That question can be more properly determined in some other proceeding instituted for the purpose. The relations between counsel and client are of a very delicate and confidential-character, and unless the utmost confidence prevails between them the client’s interests must necessarily suffer. .Whether in any case, in virtue of an agreement
made, an attorney may successfully resist an application of his client to substitute another in his place, we need not stop to inquire. ' In this case one of the States of this Union is the litigant, and moves to change Its attorney for reasons which are deemed sufficient by its responsible officers. It is abundantly able, and it must be presumed will be willing, to compensate the respondent for any loss he may sustain in not being- continued in the management of the cause. The court cannot hesitate in permitting the State to appear and conduct its causes by such counsel as it shall choose to represent it, leaving the respondent to such remedies for the redress of any injui’y he may sustain as may be within his power. Under the decision which we have just made in relation to the money in his hands, he will be able to retain that fund and any papers and documents belonging to his client until his claims shall be adjudicated in such action as the State may see fit to institute therefor.
An order to discharge the respondent, George
W.
Paschal, as solicitor and counsel for the complainant in the second case, No. 6, will be granted.
No costs will be allowed to either party on these motions.
Orders accordingly.