SECOND READING. (Hansard, 23 February 1870)

§ MR. RATHBONE
, in moving that this Bill be now read a second time, said, he did not think it would be necessary to detain the House with many observations, as he believed the present mode of remunerating attorneys and solicitors was universally condemned. It was marvellous that in a country like this there should so long have existed a system of remunerating men by the length of their documents, and the number of items they could put into their bills. The system admitted of solicitors and attorneys literally inventing items of charge, and increasing the length of large documents; and that increase of length was a source of increased danger of mistakes in the documents as well as an increase of expense to the client. It was a system, therefore, which, while its admission of excessive and fictitious charges was offensive to the most high-minded part of the profession, on the other hand afforded the readiest possible means for a greedy and unscrupulous man to fleece his client without going beyond the strict letter of the law. It was a system which did not distinctly recognize either skill and labour or the responsibility thrown upon the practitioner; the good and the bad workman were paid alike, and there was not the benefit arising from competition that was to be found in the United States. But the worst part of the present system was that so long as it existed it placed 757 an impediment in the way of passing many measures which had for their object the simplification and improvement of the law, and whenever any such reforms were carried it placed the greatest difficulty in the way of their beneficial operation. It was the opinion of many of the most experienced in the profession that any Bill for rendering more easy and cheap the transfer of land could not operate unless some change were first effected in the present system of solicitors' charges. Such a Bill would simply be ruin to the great body of country practitioners. One reason why Lord Westbury's Act for the Registry of Land Titles had become a dead letter was because no attorney could work it and get properly remunerated for his labour. The cheap and easy transfer of small properties was of great importance to working men, and it was also essential that they should have similar facilities for raising money on mortgage. The system of remuneration of solicitors presented the chief difficulty to those of the working classes who desired to obtain a safe and profitable investment for their savings; and mainly on the ground that the Bill would, if passed, offer inducements to working men to invest their savings in a profitable manner, he had undertaken to bring the Bill before the House in order that it might become law. The evils which it sought to remove would be remedied by freedom of contract, guarded by the most stringent regulations to prevent either fraud or extortion being practised on clients. By the provisions of the Bill the attorney and client might agree together for the payment of a certain amount, in lieu of the mode of charge at present adopted but as the position of the attorney gave him considerable facility to take advantage of the inexperience of his client, it was provided in the Bill that all such agreements should be subject to revision and reversal by a court of justice, even after payment had been made by the client, and this mode of appeal would be simple and inexpensive. There was a provision that by agreement attorneys might take security for future costs, which would tend to prevent business especially that of the poorer classes, from falling into the hands of speculative and unscrupulous attorneys. The Bill also provided that in the taxation of costs regard should be had to the skill used 758 by the attorney. It was further provided that, subject to stringent conditions, a legal trustee might be remunerated for his professional services. The principles of the Bill were not new in legislation; they had been recently recognized in many legal decisions, and to a certain extent in several Acts of Parliament. The Law Association had carefully considered the provisions of the Bill and approved of them, and he hoped that no opposition would be presented to a measure which was calculated to be of service to the community at large.

MR. HENLEY
said, he would have been glad to hear the opinion of the Government on this Bill, but as there was no one there to give it they must do without it as well as they could. He did not pretend to give any opinion on the Bill, but he thought the 19th section, as it stood at present, was rather one sided. He was anxious as much as anyone that documents should be kept within reasonable limits; but he would suggest that, if payment was to be made for skill as well as length, there ought to be a provision that where necessary length occurred it should be paid for in a proper manner. He hoped that when the Bill went into Committee this point would be considered.

§ MR. HURST
said, with respect to the 17th section, relating to the remuneration of a solicitor acting as a trustee, much might be contended on both sides; he did not say such payment would not be right, but the details of the section would require the most serious consideration before the provision passed into law. He considered the Bill as an improvement, and was surprised that something of the kind had not been done before.

§ MR. HERMON
said, he approved generally of the measure.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, he thought the clause in the Bill enabling a solicitor to make a bargain with his client to receive a sum far beyond what the taxing officer would give him ought to be guarded in some way for the protection of the client. He should contend that the bargain should be subjected to the same condition as that between the coachman and the hirer; a bargain should be made, but if the coachman should, thorough the ignorance of the hirer, get more than the authorized fare, the latter should be entitled to recover for the difference; for 759 scarcely anybody but a taxing master knew exactly what an attorney was entitled to receive for the performance of his duties.

§ MR. G. B. GREGORY
said, he believed the provisions of the Bill were sufficiently restricted to meet the dangers that had been suggested; but if that were not the case, the promoters would be willing to consider any Amendments; that might be proposed in Committee. The Bill did not emanate from him or anybody with whom he was connected, but from the mercantile interest in the House who were Gentlemen really interested in the subject; on one point he wished to say a few words. At the present time the trouble taken by the legal profession in the transfer of small property was equal to the labour in respect of large property, and the consequence was that the charge was about the same in amount. It was, therefore, very desirable that a professional man should have the opportunity of saying to his client—"This is a small case; I will undertake it for you, and it will cost you so much." For this the attorney could only be compensated by a higher scale of charges in cases which would well afford it. In respect of the larger transfers, it would be open to the client to say whether he would go according to that higher scale, or whether he would pay the ordinary charges. The operation of the present law practically excluded an attorney from a trust; and inasmuch as many testators, on account of the complication of their affairs, were most anxious that they should be dealt with by their confidential adviser, the clause practically qualifying an attorney to act as trustee ought to pass into law. He would remark that the disqualification of solicitors to act as trustees arose from a decision of Lord Lyndhurst, who ruled that a solicitor so acting could not make professional charges in his capacity of trustee. As for as he had examined the Bill, it was calculated to prevent the operation of fraud.

§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEY
said, he wished to point out that the 10th clause of the Bill afforded the security which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) desired in favour of clients; because it provided that if the court or judge before whom the agreement between the solicitor and 760 the client should be sought to be enforced or to be set aside was satisfied that undue advantage had been taken in making the agreement, he might require the agreement to be given up and altogether cancelled.