Payment of an Advocate
In 1863, Chief Justice Erle gave judgment in the case of Kennedy v. Broun, which involved the right of the plaintiff, a barrister, to recover the sum of 20,000l., alleged to have been promised by Mrs. Broun, then Mrs. Swinfen, for professional services rendered in the matter of the Swinfen estates; the trial at Warwick having been compromised by Lord Chelmsford, then Sir Frederick Thesiger. An action was brought by Mr. Kennedy to recover the 20,000l. in question, and a verdict was given in his favour. A rule was obtained to set aside that verdict and enter it for the defendant. The Chief Justice, in a most elaborate judgment, said that the relation of the parties, as advocate and client, incapacitated the latter from making any promise of remuneration which could be recovered as a debt. The payment to an advocate was as honorarium not merces—and the opinion of all the judges, from the days of Justinian to the present time, supported that view. The rule for a new trial to enter the verdict for the defendants was therefore absolute. This of course quashed Mr. Kennedy’s claim.