The Illinois case is directly opposed to this, and holds that the function of determin ing whether an applicant is sufficiently quainted with the law pertains to the courts themselves. An act providing that persons having certificates of graduation from law schools of a certain specified standard should be admitted to practise law was held to be an unconstitutional encroachment upon the judicial branch of the government; In re Day, 181 Ill. 73, 54 N. E. 646, 50 L. R. A. 519; and to the same effect, In re Branch, 70 N. J. L. 537, 57 Atl. 431; In re Mosness, 39 Wis. 509, 20 Am. Rep. 55, where a stat ute was held invalid which authorized the admission of a non-resident. See 13 Harv. L. Rev. 233, where it is said, "The legisla ture certainly has no positive power to com pel the courts to 'admit persons to practice before them," although admitting a limited control to prevent the admission of unsuita ble persons. And a Pennsylvania case com menting on an act providing that the court shall admit attorneys in specified cases says, "We are clearly of the opinion that the Act of 1887, though probably not so intended, is an encroachment upon the judiciary depart ment of the government ;" Petition of Splane, 123 Pa. 527, 16 Atl. 481.
It has been held that, excepting where permitted by special statute, women act as attorneys-at-law in the various states ; In re Bradwell, 55 Ill. 535 ; Bradwell v. Illi nois, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 130, 21 L. Ed. 442 ; and the supreme court of the United States will not issue a mandamus to compel a state court to admit a woman to practise law be fore such court, upon the ground that she has been denied a privilege or immunity be longing to her as a citizen of the United States, in contravention of the constitution ; In re Lockwood, 154 U. S. 116, 14 Sup. Ct. 1082; 38 L. Ed. 929 ; the right to practise law in a state court not being such privilege or immunity ; Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 130, 21 L. Ed. 442; but the general trend of authority now is that women may be ad mitted to practise as attorneys ; In re Leach, 134 Ind. 665, 34 N. E. 641, 21 L. It. A. 701; Ricker's Petition, 66 N. H. 207, 29 At]. 559, 24 L. R. A. 740; Richardson's Case, 3 D. R. (Pa.) 299. Any woman of good standing at the bar of the supreme court of any state or territory or of the District of Columbia for three years, and of good moral character, may become a member of the bar of the su preme court of the U. S.; Act Feb. 15, 1879. In North Carolina, unnaturalized foreigners cannot be licensed as attorneys ; Ex parte Thompson, 10 N. C. 355; Weeks, Att. at Law, 79, note.
The business of attorneys is to carry on the practical and formal parts of the suit ; 1 Kent 307. See, as to their powers, 2 Supp. to Ves. Jr. 241, 254 ; 3 Chit. Bla. Com. 23, 338 ; Bacon, Abr. Attorney; Lynch v. Com., 16 S. & R. (Pa.) 368, 16 Am. Dec. 582; Hus ton v. Mitchell, 14 S. & It. (Pa.) 307, 16 Am. Dec. 506; Holker v. Parker, 7 Cra. (U. S.) 452, 3 L Ed. 396.
The presumption is that an attorney has authority to appear ; if the person he ap pears for does not disclaim his authority, he is bound ; Bacon v. Mitchell, 14 N. D. 454, 106 N. W. 129, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 244 ; Inter national Harvester Co. of America v. Champ lin, 155 App. Div. 847, 140 N. Y. Supp. 842.
The authority of an attorney commences with his retainer ; Stone v: Bank, 174 'U. S. 413, 19 Sup. Ct. 747, 43 L. Ed. 1028 ; while acting generally for a client he cannot ac cept service without authority ; Reed v. Reed,. 19 S. C. 548. After he has been re tained in a case, he has certain implied pow ers therein ; Stone v. Bank, 174 U. S. 413, 19 Sup. Ct. 747, 43 L. Ed. 1028. In suits actual ly pending, he may agree that one suit shall abide the event of another suit ; Ohlquest v.
Farwell, 71 Ia. 231, 32 N. W. 277 ; Gilmore v. Ins. Co., 67 Cal. 366, 7 Pac. 781. He may discontinue an action ; Barrett v. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 628; Simpson v. Brown, 1 Wash. Terr. 248. In Rhutasel v. Rule, 97 Ia. 20, 65 N. W. 1013, it was held that the authority to dis miss must be specially conferred ; contra, Bacon v. Mitchell, 14 N. D. 454, 106 N. W. 129, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 244. He may, where a pending case has been referred to arbi trators, agree to the submission of all mat ters in controversy, including those not em braced in the case ; Bingham's Trustees v. Guthrie, 19 Pa. 418.
In general, the agreement of an attorney at-law, within the scope of his employment, binds his client ; 1 Salk. 86 ; as, to amend the record ; Johnson v. Chaffant, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 75 ; to refer a cause ; Holker v. Park er, 7 Cra. (U. S.) 436, 3 L. Ed. 396 ; 3 Taunt. 486; not to sue out a writ of error ; 1 H. Bla. 21, 23 ; 2 Saund. 71 a, b; 1 Term 388 ; to strike off a non pros.; Reinholdt v. Alberti, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 469 ; to waive a judgment by de fault ; 1 Archb. Pr. 26 ; or waive a jury trial ; Stevenson v. Felton, 99 N. C. 58, 5 S. E. 399. But the act must be within the scope of his authority. He cannot, for example, without special authority, purchase lands for the cli ent at sheriff's sale ; Pearson v. Morrison, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 21; Beardsley v. Root, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 464, 6 Am. Dec. 386 ; or extend the time for payment of money to release a judg ment in ejectment, entered by consent ; Beat ty v. Hamilton, 127 Pa. 71, 17 Atl. 755 ; or compromise a claim ; Brockley v. Brockley, 122 Pa. 1, 15 Atl. 646 ; Willard v. Gas-Fixture Co., 47 Mo. App. 1 ; U. S. v. Beebe, 180 U. S. 343, 21 Sup. Ct. 371, 45 L. Ed. 563; con tra, Beliveau v. Mfg. Co., 68 N. H. 225, 40 Atl. 734, 44 L. R. A. 167, 73 Am. St. Rep. 577 ; or satisfy a judgment for less than is due ; Peters v. Lawson, 66 Tex. 336, 17 S. W. 734.
In the absence of fraud, the client is con cluded by the acts, and even by the omissions, of his attorney ; Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 333 (Gil. 256) ; Sampson v. Ohleyer, 22 Cal. 200 ; Weeks, Att. at Law 375.
The mistake or unskillfulness of the at torney is not enough to authorize an injunc tion to restrain the enforcement of a judg ment ; Donovan v. Miller, 12 Idaho 600, 88 Pac. 82, 9 L. R. A. '(N. S.) 524, 10 Ann. Cas. 444 ; Hambrick v. Crawford, 55 Ga. 335 ; Lowe v. Hamilton, 132 Ind. 406, 31 N. E. 1117 ; Payton v. 11IcQuown, 97 Ky. 757, 31 S. W. 874, 53 Am. St. Rep. 437, and 31 L. R. A. 33, where the cases are collected in a note. Nor is the mistake of counsel upon a point of law ground for a new trial ; Patterson v. Mat thews, 3 Bibb (Ky.) 80. Relief, however, has been granted on this ground, notably in Sharp v. New York, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 578, which with an early case in Tennessee is criticized as deciding "with a spirit of hu manity but with little regard for the settled principles of law" ; Black, Judg. sec. 375.
In general, he has all the powers exercised by the usages of the court in which the suit is pending; Weeks, Att. at Law 374.
The principal duties of an attorney are -to be true to the court and to his client ; to manage the business of his client with care, skill, and integrity ; 4 Burr. 2061; 1 B. & Ald. 202 ; 2 With. 325 ; 1 Bingh. 347 ; Mech. Ag. 824 ; to keep his client informed as to the state of his business ; to keep his secrets confided to him as such. And he is privileged from disclosing such secrets when called as a witness ; Alderman v. People, 4 Mich. 414, 69 Am. Dec. 321; Sibley v. Waf fle, 16 N. Y. 180; Martin v. Anderson, 21 Ga. 301; 40 E. L. & Eq. 353 ; Sargent v. Inhab itants of Hampden, 38 Me. 581. See CLI