could not wait for it, and besides his lawyer had told him that a part payment was sufficient. The purchaser received a simple receipt acknowledging the payment of money.

The owner of the land later refused to convey and tendered back the money. The client lost the land and blamed his lawyer for misinforming him. No amount of explanation could convince him that he had misunderstood the instructions. It is easy to see that if the lawyer had confined his explanations to the really necessary proposition the client would have acted properly.

§ 32. DUTY THAT ADVICE SHOULD BE CLEAR AND INTELLIGIBLE.

Whatever advice or explanation is given to the client should be made perfectly clear and definite. The client is sure to blame the lawyer for his own mistaken ideas of the explanation, and perhaps, after all, the lawyer is to blame for not ascertaining by questioning whether the client really understood.

AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE RESULTS OF CLIENT'S MISUNDERSTANDING

A client had a claim for necessaries against a certain party. Under the statute in the State it was provided that, by an equitable process after judgment, a debtor could be ordered by the

court to pay the judgment in weekly or periodical installments. The client wished to take advantage of this law.

Her lawyer explained the steps to be taken and added that the amount of payments ordered by the court would depend upon how much the debtor was earning, for he would always be allowed to retain enough to support his family. From this it might readily be inferred that unless the debtor were earning more than enough for family needs no payments would be ordered. But the lawyer did not make this point explicit. He assumed that the client understood. Suit was brought, and an attachment was attempted. The attachment failed, so there was nothing to do but rely upon the statutory remedy of equitable process after judgment.

The client met the lawyer on the street shortly after suit was entered and asked about the attachment and its cost. When they parted the client asked anxiously:

"But I am sure of getting my money from him finally?"

"No. The court will order him to pay if he is earning more than enough to support his family, but he may not be doing that."

"What? You told me the court would make him pay, anyway."

"Pardon me, madam. You have made a mis

take. I never told you such a thing as that. I told you the court would always allow him to retain enough of his wages to support his family. I thought you understood from that that unless we could prove that he was earning more than enough for his family, the court would not order him to pay, and we would have to wait and try again when he was earning more money.

"I think you're just horrid! I'd rather lose that money than spend any more when I'm not sure of getting it back. You did tell me the court would make him pay anyway, so there!"

So there it was. The lawyer could not convince her of her error and, although he had shortly before won an important case for her, she went away in "a huff" over this trivial matter, told him not to do any more on the case, and never brought him any more business. She did not even offer to pay the expenses that she knew had been incurred. The lawyer paid these bills and charged them up to "experience."

§ 33. DUTY IN RESPECT TO OVER-INQUISITIVE CLIENT.

A garrulous, over-inquisitive client, if given any encouragement, will pester his lawyer with innumerable questions. He will "drop in for a talk on the case" when there is no necessity of

a conference and disturb his lawyer when his time should be free for important work.

The better plan is to give the client merely the explanations that are necessary to an intelligent understanding of his duties and liabilities with respect to any part he may be called upon to perform in connection with the case. He will respect his lawyer more if dealt with at arm's length in a thoroughly business-like manner than if taken into confidence in respect to things that are immaterial to his own conduct in the case. The lawyer will also be spared the nuisance of unsolicited calls from his client.

There is another phase of the subject that should not be overlooked. The client who knows precisely the amount of work and the time spent by the lawyer on his case, is likely to estimate the value of his services on the basis of day labor and to dispute a perfectly legitimate charge when settling time comes.

§ 34. DUTY TO ADVISE AGAINST ILLEGAL ACTS. Clients sometimes disclose to their lawyers an intention to do an illegal act. Not necessarily do they ask the lawyer to participate in the act, or to take any active part even remotely connected therewith, but they come for advice as to the probabilities of conflict with the authorities and the extent of their liabilities if caught.

What is the lawyer's duty? Should he make a simple explanation of the law and its manner of enforcement? Is it his duty to intrude himself into the client's affairs to the extent of exhorting him to give up his illegal purpose?

Perhaps the client wishes to commit an assault and battery upon an enemy and desires to know if there is not a way of evading the law by provoking the enemy to strike the first blow. Or, perhaps he has committed embezzlement and desires to know where he can flee to escape punishment; or, perhaps he wishes to burn his property to secure the insurance and desires to know certain technicalities of insurance law.

It is the lawyer's duty in all such cases to advise the client against the intended act. It is his further duty to absolutely refuse to give him any information on the desired point. If the client still persists in his evil purpose he should be shown the door and dismissed summarily. A lawyer never loses but gains by severing his relations with a client who turns out to be a rascal.

$ 35. DUTY NOT TO TAKE A HOPELESS CIVIL CASE.

Clients are constitutionally inclined to feel that they are sure of winning a case. They see their own side of the controversy and can not understand the points favorable to their adversary.