view, and car fares or carriage hire for such purposes may amount to a considerable sum.

"It should perhaps be added in passing that the ordinary client is much more inclined to be liberal before suit is started than he will ever be afterward; especially if the suit is unsuccessful. If advance costs are obtained it may save embarrassment to all concerned."

§ 28. SUMMARY OF CHAPTER.

The question of whether a lawyer should accept or decline a proferred case is a difficult one to decide, and a great deal depends upon the decision finally made. The lawyer has a freedom of choice among those seeking his services. By this freedom of choice the lawyer regulates the branch of the law in which he will specialize, if he decides to specialize. The lawyer is under a duty not to accept a case if he is himself a party in adverse interest, and is perhaps under the same duty even if remotely connected with the case. He is under a duty not to accept if representing the adverse party, and this is true if both litigants are regular clients of his. In the latter case it may be a question whether he can conscientiously act for either. He is under a duty not to accept a cause if recently counsel for the adverse party. The lawyer's duty in case of divorce sought by 1 Archer's Law Office and Court Procedure, page 11.

friends forbids him to do anything except to try to effect a reconciliation, unless one of the parties has so acted as to forfeit the ties of friendship. He is under a duty to accept cases against erring lawyers. He has a right to defend criminals, although he is not always under a duty so to do. General suggestions are also made as to lawyers, rights and duties respecting retainer and advance costs.

CHAPTER IV

DUTIES TO CLIENT (Continued)

SEC. 29. Duty not to Hastily Advise.

Hasty Decisions Dangerous to Lawyer.
An Illustration.

Another Illustration.

SEC. 30. Not to Make Positive Assertions of Outcome of Suit. Holding Out Delusive Hopes.

Preparing for Unpleasant Surprises.

SEC. 31. How Much Advice should be Given.

An Illustration of the Evils of too Much Advice.

SEC. 32. Duty that Advice should be Clear.

An Illustration of the Result of a Client's Mis-
understanding.

SEC. 33.

SEC. 34.

Duty in Respect to Over-Inquisitive Client.
Duty to Advise against Illegal Acts.

SEC. 35.

Duty not to Take a Hopeless Civil Case.

An Illustration of the Headstrong Persistence of a
Client.

Effect of Suing upon Hopeless Cases.

SEC. 36. Unjust or Inequitable Suits.

An Illustration of Effect upon Lawyer's Career. SEC. 37. Is it a Duty to Advance Money to Client? No Duty Ordinarily.

SEC. 38. Summary of Chapter.

29. DUTY NOT TO HASTILY ADVISE.

The client has a right to the carefully considered judgment of his attorney. The client must shape his conduct in accordance with the advice given him, and if that advice be ill-considered the client's

rights may be jeopardized or lost. He has a right to assume that the lawyer is doing his best in so advising and will conclude that if his best advice is so disastrous when followed a change of lawyers is desirable.

HASTY DECISIONS DANGEROUS TO LAWYER

The longer the experience of the lawyer, the more thoroughly does he understand the danger of snap judgments and the more carefully does he avoid them. Caution and deliberateness of judgment are characteristics of successful lawyers, for no man can acquire any degree of success in his profession if he gains the reputation of "going off at half cock." Clients are afraid to entrust cases of any importance to such a lawyer and run the risk of a fatal blunder.

AN ILLUSTRATION

How truly this result works out in everyday life may be seen from the following:

In a certain New England State, not many years ago, a young lawyer, an ardent temperance worker, was elected prosecuting officer for the county. The liquor traffic was under the ban of the law in the State, and the county which the young lawyer was to serve was particularly odious for the illegal liquor traffic carried on in its principal towns.

"Kitchen bar rooms" and disorderly houses had become so shamelessly prevalent that the good people of the county rose up in might to stamp out all such evils. A campaign was waged to elect a county attorney who would enforce the law. The successful candidate was a brilliant young man, witty, eloquent, and resourceful in debate. Everyone predicted a brilliant future for him, for the office of county attorney was regarded as a stepping-stone to the bench or to a large and lucrative law practice.

In spite of the young man's wit, eloquence, and undoubted zeal, nearly every prosecution that he brought resulted in a discharge of the accused. His indictments were frequently defective, his evidence was often imperfectly prepared, and the lawyers for the defence found it easy to checkmate him at every turn.

The real difficulty lay in the fact that the county attorney was addicted to snap judgments. In his zeal to convict, he failed to verify first impressions and went to court unprepared. The result was that the young man met with disaster on every hand and, strangely enough, never seemed to realize where the fault lay. His former supporters deserted him in disgust, and when his term of office expired he had shown himself to be the most inefficient prosecutor that the county had seen for many years.