« PreviousContinue »
whose presence is indispensable if one would avoid defeat. Such a dreary dearth of talent was never known, or we should not have Bramwells on the judgment-seat.” Some time since, curiously enough (during another slack period, probably), a writer in the same newspaper, which now permits its contributors to degrade its character by such passages as the above, commented, as we recollect, on the pre-eminence of Baron Bramwell when at the bar. 6 The Bramwells, Lushes, and Peacocks,” were, we think, then, and doubtless for good reasons, referred to as the able lawyers of the epoch, far surpassing others who were in the paper of that day to be depreciated. Since the period when the Times chose to laud Mr. Bramwell, who then, by-the-bye, was rapidly rising to the head of the common law bar, he has taken a prominent part in reforming the procedure of the common law; and was one of the most vigorous and useful members of the most successful and practical commissions which has ever set to work to accomplish a great reform. He had long been known as a hardworking and able lawyer, who had achieved a reputation by his singular acuteness, and resolute determination in protecting the interests of his client: but on this commission he proved himself to possess a scientific knowledge of the principles of jurisprudence, and ability to apply that knowledge to the reconstruction of the practice of English law. When raised to the bench, his appointment (unlike the recent one, on which we have already commented) was hailed as the best possible exercise of discretion in selecting a man for the judicial office. The public thus acquired the services of a lawyer of experience and proved powers, and further, of one who personally deserved his promotion. Although the learned judge has justified, in his judicial career, the wisdom of those who made the appointment, nevertheless the public has been not unfrequently condemned to see insults passed upon him. On the occasion of the Western Circuit scandal, the reason is obvious: The reporter to a newspaper is guilty of misconduct in the performance of his business; and an article writer is rash and vulgar. Moreover, the managers of the paper do not like to have such misconduct exposed; nor to retract a statement, or
repudiate a sentiment once declared in large type. This thickand-thin sticking to an error once committed, as well as the attempts, by persistent abuse and terrorism, to put down the expression of opinion, are injurious to the character of the press.
We gladly admit that it is rare to find the leading journal forsaking alike decency and veracity, as on this occasion; and it is fortunate it is so. The two qualities which alone make a free press an engine for good, and preserve it from being a public nuisance and a social evil, are the truthfulness and talent employed upon
it. If it should ever become in England a general practice to utter falsehood, and indulge in libellous comment through newspapers, their
will vanish self-suppressed. Before dismissing the personal part of the case, we will take this opportunity of saying a few words on the relation generally of the Press to the Bar. The case of the Western Circuit and its critic is no doubt an exceptional one, in being especially gross ; for first, the information could not have been derived from the attorneys, as was alleged; and secondly, the spirit of falsehood was maintained afterwards in a very barefaced fashion. Thus certain members of the circuit took the trouble to explain in reply, by letter to the Times, that it was untrue they had run away with the briefs; on the contrary, so soon as they had discovered that the unexpected derangement of business would prevent their appearing at Bristol, they had “returned their briefs.” Whereupon the editor actually thought it candid and respectable to remark on these letters, that though the briefs were said to be returned, nothing was said as to the fees. To lawyers the folly of this insinuation would be clear; but on the general reader the impression would, of course, be left unfavourable to the honesty of the bar. We do not, therefore, refer to this particular piece of newspaper conduct as a fair specimen of its class; but it cannot escape observation, that frequent opportunities are seized
1 This necessitated another letter, to explain that the fees had been also returned. When honoraria come to be written about in the newspapers, it is time for barristers to consult whether “fees" have not already taken the rank of debts or payments, as the case may be, and it would not be better to treat them as vulgar money due or received.
upon by writers in the newspapers to attack and depreciate the bar. Of course the vulgar prejudices against "Lawyers” might be expected to be represented now and then in the columns of inferior “organs of the public,” addressed as these must be to an ignorant class of readers; but it is somewhat strange that a like illiberality should be found so much among the better writers for the better papers. We must remember that a large portion of the staff of newspaper writers is recruited from the bar. Men not inferior in ability, education, and standing to those who ultimately reach the highest prizes to which the bar leads, are drawn off by the various causes by which the career of men is changed, and their destiny fixed, to supply the newspaper press. In England, this department of literary labour rarely conducts to public eminence, or ultimately obtains the same substantial rewards which the most successful counsel gain.
The consciousness of this fact may, perhaps, to some extent provoke a portion of the unfair and harsh reflections to which we are alluding. Be the cause, however, what it may, the fact is patent; and as the newspapers may bring the views of their writers before the public as prominently and frequently as they please, and the practising bar cannot reply, the repeated attacks are not without their effect.
No public men, belonging to a responsible profession like that of the law, ought to object to fair criticism and honest discussion. What we protest against is the misrepresentation of their conduct, and the cavilling imputations of low motives and loose principles. The journalist and the advocate both occupy responsible positions, and have onerous duties to perform. The course which each is compelled to take is not unfrequently rudely questioned, though it might oftentimes be justified if it were permitted to either to discover to his neighbours the grounds of the conduct he is pursuing. As this is generally repugnant to the principles of both professions, we may fairly insist upon the propriety of neither having to bear, at the hands of the other, the penalty of the worst construction being put on its actions, and the worst imputation on its motives.
The requirements of society have created the profession of the
barrister; and so long as the public finds it essential or useful to maintain, as a distinct profession, a body of men learned in the law, so long will it exist, and no longer. Its position, rules, constitution, and etiquette will vary with the relations of society; and it is necessary occasionally, for the profession itself, to take into timely consideration such internal arrangements as may, peradventure, be the better for revision and discussion.
It is urged, for example, that there is an absurd running after a few overworked men, who, being in fashion, have so much business thrust upon them that they necessarily neglect a portion of it; and then the common charge is immediately urged, of the client's money being taken for doing nothing. Now, it is undeniable that there have been, and, for aught we know to the contrary, may still be, men for whose advocacy there is an unnatural demand, and there are different explanations of the phenomenon offered to the public. It is said by some that it is the fault of the attorneys, who are incapable either of judging when a particular counsel is unable to do justice to his client because he has too much committed to him, or of exercising any discrimination in discovering men with plenty of time and skill ready for disposal. On the other hand, the attorneys allege that their clients demand that they should retain the most notorious counsel; and it is the only protection an attorney has, in case of a client's failure, to be able to tell him-“We employed the eloquent Mr. John Smith, Q.C., M.P., the well-known Sir H. Brown, or the celebrated Serjeant Boanerges Robinson; nothing more could be done for you.” We apprehend there is truth in both statements, but it is not the whole truth.
That solicitors and clients follow famous men from the motives above mentioned is true. Ignorance of the material composing the bar is a fertile cause of the evil complained of; but it is also a fact, that at one particular time there may be one or two men who have proved themselves to be more successful than others have proved themselves to be. Up to a certain point, the larger the practice of a man, the greater is the ease and certainty with which he accomplishes it, whether small or great. The contingent
advantages to litigants, derived from being represented by a particular leading man of the bar, is naturally coveted by all clients. This natural anxiety then becomes exaggerated, till the chance of being so represented is sought for long after its real value has ceased to be worth paying for.
It is hard, no doubt, for all parties to find out just when the swiftest horse is being overweighted, or entered for too many stakes. Whilst a counsel's doors are besieged by rival clerks with golden offerings, willingly poured out at his feet, and whilst things as a rule "pull through” somehow, it is not wonderful that he, the counsel himself, does not perceive that he has undertaken too much. If, by mischance on some occasion, he fail to appear in court for one client because he is elsewhere representing another, the former knew that this was the risk he ran. He paid his fee, and the heavier part of the work—that of reading the papers, mastering the detail, and spending hours in preparing for the trial—he left to be undergone by his counsel. But upon this point there should be a clear understanding between counsel and client. No honesty of purpose, and no careful arrangement, even with men of moderate practice, will prevent occasionally an untoward conflict between various calls on their attention. Now, if it be understood that, unless the counsel be personally present at the final step of a suit, he is not to be considered as having earned any fee, whatever may have been the time and thought he may have spent upon
then let this rule be established, and invariably carried out. The proposition, that "learned friends" should hand over the fees to the substitutes they themselves appoint to hold their briefs, is not in harmony with the feeling of the bar, and, indeed, is not practicable. The idea of "going halves” is ludicrous. We see no alternative to the rule (having defined what "earning fee” means), that he who does not earn his fee, shall not keep or claim it. It may be argued by analogy, that if a physician hears all the patient's symptoms, and investigates all the details of his health, but stops short of writing his prescription, the fee would hardly be expected. So, if the surgeon did every thing up to the amputation of your leg, and