ENT; CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS. His first duty is the administration of justice, and his duty to his client is subordinate to that ; In re Thomas, 36 Fed. 242. If an at torney while employed by one side secretly seeks employment on the other side, promis ing to give information acquired during such employment, he will be disbarred ; U. S. v. Costen, 38 Fed. 24; but an attorney who learns from his client, in a professional con sultation, or in any other manner, that the latter intends to commit a crime, it seems is bound by a higher duty to society and to the party to be affected to disclose it ; State v. Barrows, 52 Conn. 323.
In estimating the value of services render ed by an attorney it is proper to take into account the time necessarily employed in and the success of the litigation ; Berry v. Davis, 34 Ia. 594 ; the amount of values involved ; Smith v. R. Co., 60 Ia. 515, 15 N. W. 303 ; and recovered ; Parsons v. Hawley, 92 Ia. 175, 60 N. W. 520; the ability, learning and experience of the attorney and his standing in the profession ; Clark v. Ellsworth, 104 Ia. 442, 73 N. W. 1023 ; the character of the claim and the amount of the services to be rendered ; Morehouse v. R. Co., 185 N. Y. 520, 78 N. E. 179, 7 Ann. Cas. 377.
An attorney's contract with his client for a fifty per cent. contingent fee is not nec essarily unenforceable on the ground of be ing unconscionable ; In re Fitzsimons, 174 N. Y. 15, 66 N. E. 554, but see to the con trary, 48 Ohio L. Bul. 238, discussing Hermon v. R. Co., 121 Fed. 184; Muller v. Kelly, 125 Fed. 212, 60 C. C. A. 170. These cases were not decided on the ground of champerty, but of taking improper advantage of the fiduciary relation. Fifty per cent. of the claim was, held not to be extortionate in a difficult and complicated case, where the at exercised no influence in adjusting the amount, but it was voluntarily offered, and where he had paid out of it large amounts to other counsel ; Taylor v. Bonin, 110 U. S. 42, 3 Sup. Ct. 441, 28 L. Ed. 64.
Where an attorney had agreed to prosecute an action for a contingent fee of one-half the amount recovered, it was held that the client could maintain an action against the attor ney for the whole amount so recovered less the costs paid by the attorney ; Ackert v. Barker, 131 Mass. 436. See CHAMPEETT.
A contract for a contingent fee does not deprive the client of the right to substitute another attorney ; Johnson v. Ravitcb, 113
App. Div. 810, 99 N. Y. Supp. 1059.
Any agreement conditioned on obtaining a divorce or intended or calculated to foa 1 tate its obtainment is void ; Barngrover v. Pettigrew, 128 Ia. 533, 104 N. W. 904, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 260, 111 Am. St. Rep. 206, where the contract was to procure evidence to obtain a divorce. The parties to the di vorce suit compromised and settled their dif ferences and the attorney sued to recover on the contract. It was held that he could not recover on a qua'atum meruit because the services rendered were in themselves illegal.
A provision of a trust mortgage deed'that in case of its sale an attorney's fee of five per cent. should be paid out of the proceeds was held void as against public policy though the fee was reasonable ; Turner v. Boger, 126 N. C. 300, 35 S. E. 592, 49 L. R. A. 590.
A contract between a wife and her so licitor providing that for his services in pro curing an allowance of alimony and enforc ing its payment he shall receive a share of the alimony recovered is void, not only be cause the claim for alimony is incapable of assignment, but also because the contract is against public policy ; Lynde v. Lynde, 64 N. J. Eq. 736, 52 At. 694, 58 L. R. A. 471, 97 Am. St. Rep. 692. Here the Court of Chancery took jurisdiction over the solicitor as an officer of the court, in order to require him to do justice to his client.
Any contract whereby a client is prevent ed from settling or discontinuing a suit is void, as such an agreement would encourage litigation; Kansas City Elevated R. Co. v. Service, 74 Kan. 316, 94 Pac. 262, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1105 ; Huber v. Johnson, 68 Mimi 74, 70 N. W. 806, 64 Am. St. Rep. 456; Board man v. Thompson, 25 Ia. 487; Weller v. It Co., 68 N. J. Eq. 659, 61 Atl. 459, 6 Cas. 442 ; Davis v. Chase, 159 Ind. 242, 64 N. E. 88, 853, 95 Am. St. Rep. 294; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Ackley, 171 Ill. 100, 49 N. E. 222, 44 L. R. A. 177; Davis v. Webber, 66 Ark. 190, 49 S. W. 822, 45 L. R. A. 196 74 Am. St. Rep. 81; In re Snyder, 190 N. Y. 66, 82 N. E. 742, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 123 Am. St. Rep. 533, 13 Ann. Cas. 441; Davy v. Ins. Co., 78 Ohio St. 256, 85 N. E. 504, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 443, 125 Am. St. Rep. 694.