LIEN.
For a violation of his duties an action will, in general, lie; Cavillaud v. Yale, 3 Cal. 108, 58 Am. Dec. 388 ; 2 Greenl. Ev. §§ 145, 146 ; and in some cases he may be punished by attachment. Official misconduct may be in quired into in a summary manner, and the name of the offender stricken from the roll; Rice v. Com., 18 B. Monr. (Ky.) 472 ; Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 335, 20 L. Ed. 646 ; 17 Am. Dec. 194 note. See Ex parte Gar land, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 333, 18 L. Ed. 366 ; DisBAR.
It is held that to solicit causes of action tends to promote litigation and to degrade the profession and that a contract so ob tained is invalid ; Ingersoll v. Coal Co., 117 Tenn. 263, 98 S. W. 178, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 282, 119 Am. St. Rep. 1003, 10 Ann. Cas. 829, where the plaintiffs, a firm of attorneys, solicited a large number of claims for per sonal injuries and brought suit thereon. The defendants compromised with the claimants without the consent of the attorneys, and the latter sued the defendants for the fees prom ised by the claimants.
An attorney who enters into a barratrous contract to bring suits cannot recover upon an implied contract for services rendered in a suit brought pursuant to such contract, though the services are not, in themselves and apart from the barratrous contract, im proper or illegal ; Gammons v. Johnson, 76. Minn. 76, 78 N. W. 1035 ; Gammons v. Gul branson, 78 Minn. 21, 80 N. W. 779. A con tract whereby an attorney agrees to pay for business brought to him is void ; Alpers v. Hunt, 86 Cal. 78, 24 Pac. 846, 9 L. R. A. 483, 21 Am. St. Rep. 17 ; but this decision was under a statute providing for the disbarment of attorneys who lent their names to be used in legal proceedings by persons who were not attorneys. That case was followed in Langdon v. Conlin, 67 Neb. 243, 93 N. W. 389, 60 L. R. A. 429, 108 Am. St. Rep. 643, 2 Cas. 834, where the facts were similar and the statute declared the rights and duties of attorneys. That such contracts are void as against public policy and good morals is held in Lyon v. Hussey, 82 Hun 15, 31 N. Y. Supp. 281; Burt v. Place, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 431, where a statute prohibits the promise of a valuable consideration to any person as an inducement to placing a claim in the hands of an attorn6y. An attorney was held to be prohibited from paying or agreeing to pay a layman for inducing a client to place his claim in the attorney's hands ; In re Clark, 184 N. Y. 222, 77 N. E. 1, affirming 108 App.
Div. 150, 95 N. Y. Supp. 388. But see to the contrary; Vocke v. Peters, 58 Ill. App. 338, where an agreement by attorneys to pay a commission for all business brought to them was held not contrary to public policy ; and to the same effect, Dunne v. Herrick, 37 Ill. App. 180, where an attorney's clerk solicited business for him and a contract between at torney and client to pay the attorney one half the amount recovered in a suit for per sonal injuries was held valid and binding on the client.
The execution and delivery by an attorney at law of a power of attorney to sign his name to any and all letters of collection and other business of the corporation as long as the attorney in fact should remain in the employ of the corporation, is unprofessional conduct requiring discipline ; In re Roths child, 140 App. Div. 583, 125 N. Y. Supp. 629. where, as the offence had never been passed upon by the court, the attorney was suspend ed from practice for one year with leave to apply for reinstatement on satisfactory proof of his conduct meanwhile.
An attorney is not an insurer of the result in a case in which he is employed, and only ordinary care and diligence can be required of him; Babbitt v. Bumpus, 73 Mich. 331, 41 N. W. 417, 16 Am. St. Rep. 585. The au thority of an attorney is revoked by the death of the client, and he cannot proceed further in the cause without a new retainer from the proper representative ; Prior Y. Kiso, 96 Mo. 303, 9 S. W. 898; Moyle v. Lan ders, 78 Cal. 99, 20 Pac. 241, 12 Am. St. Rep. 22.
An attorney is entitled to two kinds of liens for his fees, one upon the papers of his client in his possession, called a retaining lien, and the other upon a judgment or fund recovered, called a charging lien; Goodrich v. McDonald, 112 N. Y. 157, 19 N. E. 649 ; Sanders v. Seelye, 128 Ill. 631, 21 N. E. 601; Strohecker v. Irvine, 76 Ga. 639, 2 Am. St. Rep. 62. See Blackburn v. Clarke, 85 Tenn. 506, 3 S. W. 505 ; Taylor Iron & Steel Co. v. Higgins, 66 Hun 626, 20 N. Y. Supp. 746.
"A corporation cannot practice law, di rectly or indirectly ;" In re Co-operative Law Co., 198 N. Y. 479, 92 N. B. 15, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 55, 139 Am. St. Rep. 839, 19 Ann. Cas. 879.
In all United States courts parties may plead and manage their cases personally or by counsel as the rules of such courts pro vide. R. S. § 747.