I tell him not to continue with his story or let him go on until I can know both sides of the case and then try to adjust matters?"

This may seem at first thought a very commendable purpose, but the lawyer's duty is fixed and definite. He is not a judge, but a paid advocate for the adverse party. Hence, he has no right to hear a word of B's story until he has acquainted him with the fact that he is representing the other party. B comes to him in confidence, a confidence that should be held sacred by every lawyer who is worthy of his profession. B should immediately be put upon his guard.

If, after knowing the facts, B is willing to tell his story and to attempt to secure a settlement with the lawyer before him, well and good, so far as the lawyer's duty to him is concerned. A settlement out of court is always desirable, if it can be made without sacrificing the rights of one's clients.

But it should constantly be borne in mind that dealing directly with the adverse party has its dangers. The lawyer by superiority of training and greater technical knowledge has an advantage over the layman, and a sharp bargain with the layman in settling a client's case against him often breeds public distrust of the lawyer's professional ethics.

On the other hand, an agreement unsatisfac

tory to the client may raise a suspicion that there was collusion between the lawyer and the adverse party. The safer way, if he has no lawyer, is to deal with the adverse party in the presence of one's client or of witnesses. If he has a lawyer, · then the lawyer is the proper party to deal with.

DUTY WHERE BOTH CONTENDING PARTIES ARE CLIENTS

An embarrassing situation may arise in the following way: A has a grievance against B. He goes to his lawyer C for legal assistance. C is immediately aware that B is also a regular client of his. What is his duty in, the matter? Should he act as counsel for A in an action against B, or does he have a choice between the two parties, provided B also desires his assistance? But the further question arises: Is it proper for him to act at all for either party, in view of his professional relation to each?

It is easier to propound these questions than to answer them. Choosing one or the other will alienate the future business of the rejected party, and even though the relative importance of the two clients may simplify the matter of choice, yet a doubt as to the ethics of choosing at all must trouble the conscientious lawyer.

Theoretically, all clients should stand on exactly the same basis. Each should command the

absolute loyalty of counsel, and financial considerations should not cause a varying degree of vigilance or devotion. But in the practical world of affairs we must recognize that theory and practice are often totally different things. The lawyer will naturally devote more attention and vigilance to the legitimate claims of a client who can pay handsomely than he will to the service of an impecunious client. It is human

nature.

So perhaps the average lawyer would choose between the clients on the basis of financial worth. The client who customarily gave him the greater volume of business would be preferred. Of course he would try to placate the other and excuse himself as best he could for the choice he had made. If the case could not be settled without court proceedings, he would doubtless offer to suggest a lawyer who would satisfactorily handle the case for the rejected client.

But a severer code of ethics would dictate that the lawyer remain absolutely neutral. If he could not accomplish a compromise out of court by getting the adversaries together and by counselling a moderation of the extreme claims of each, he should leave the parties to fight it out without further services from him. A firm stand and a frank explanation to both parties of why he could not serve either should increase their respect for

him as a lawyer and do much to bring about a harmonious adjustment of differences.

§ 22. NOT TO ACCEPT IF RECENTLY COUNSEL FOR ADVERSE PARTY.

If one has recently been counsel for a party against whom a stranger seeks to bring suit, he should decline the offered case. The relation of attorney and client may not then exist, but there is nevertheless a duty to the former client. Every man who employs a lawyer has a right to demand that knowledge of him and of his affairs, gained by the lawyer under circumstances of trust and confidence, should not be used against him at a later time in behalf of an adversary.

A lawyer in properly handling a client's case, especially if it concerns his private affairs, gains a more intimate knowledge of the client and his vulnerable points than anyone else save his immediate relatives. Justice demands that this should be so and that the confidential relation between lawyer and client should be unhampered by any fear that the lawyer will afterward make a wrongful use of the knowledge thus acquired.

The familiar principle of the law of evidence that the lawyer cannot voluntarily nor under • compulsion testify in court to confidences from his client except with the client's consent is one phase of this general subject of the lawyer's duty

to his client. The topic under discussion is not governed by positive law, but the well-being of the profession of law demands that a lawyer should implicitly keep faith with former clients.

This duty remains, even though the client has ill-used his lawyer and wrongfully severed relations with him. The fact of ill-usage, or of refusal to pay fees rightfully due, does not release the lawyer from his professional obligations to the client. The client may have proved himself a mean and contemptible creature, but the lawyer should not, in passion or spite, forget his own high obligations and duties, and shame himself and his profession by taking a mean and contemptible revenge.

§ 23. DUTY IN CASE OF DIVORCE SOUGHT BY. FRIENDS.

It sometimes occurs that a lawyer who is a friend of both parties is asked to act in behalf of one party desiring to institute divorce proceedings against the other. The situation is a delicate one. The first duty of the lawyer so consulted, and in fact of any lawyer, even though a stranger to the unhappy couple, is to endeavor to effect a reconciliation. The marital ties of husband and wife should not be set aside except for grave causes. An angry husband or wife is prone to distort and magnify the present causes of disagreement.