Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Madson

• Decision Date: 11 June 1930
• Citation: 231 N.W. 170,201 Wis. 609
• Parties: FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND v. MADSON ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

201 Wis. 609

231 N.W. 170

FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND

v.MADSON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 11, 1930.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Eau Claire County.

Action by the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland against Nels Madson and another. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff. On motion by defendant named for an order of substitution of attorney.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Motion granted.

Motion in this court by defendant and appellant, Nels Madson, for an order substituting Farr & MacLeod as his attorneys, in place of F. V. McManamy, who was Madson's attorney in proceedings herein, which culminated in a judgment in the circuit court for the recovery by plaintiff of $7,515.07 from the defendants. Defendants did not counterclaim or seek affirmative relief. No exceptions to the court's findings and conclusions of law were filed by McManamy, but the attorneys for the defendant Zwickey filed such exceptions on behalf of both defendants. After notice of entry of judgment was served on him, McManamy served on plaintiff's attorneys a notice of appeal, but without any undertaking or deposit for costs. Madson claims that he instructed McManamy not to take an appeal, because he was not satisfied with McManamy's services. His charges for legal services and disbursements amounted to $1,193.05, and Madson paid him $632.17 in cash and a note for $200. Madson retained Farr & MacLeod, who, on his behalf, duly served a notice of appeal, accompanied by a notice of a cash deposit in lieu of an undertaking for costs. Thereafter, McManamy, on the ground that Madson still owed him a balance for services rendered herein, refused to consent in writing to the substitution of Farr & MacLeod as Madson's attorneys in this action. Thereupon, Madson made this application for an order for such substitution.Farr & MacLeod, of Eau Claire, for appellant.

F. V. McManamy, of Eau Claire, for appellant in circuit court.

Bundy, Beach & Holland, of Eau Claire, for respondent.

FRITZ, J.

This motion does not necessarily involve any question as the authority of an attorney of record to execute a satisfaction of a judgment, or to cause the issuance of process in execution thereof, or to accept service of notices after judgment, or to settle a bill of exceptions, or otherwise to continue after judgment as attorney of record in litigation, in the subject-matter of which he has acquired a pecuniary interest. In this action, Madson sought no recovery or affirmative relief. There was no property or contemplated recovery in which his attorney had acquired or was to acquire any interest. No judgment was rendered in Madson's favor, the collection, satisfaction, or enforcement of which on his behalf necessitated the rendition of further legal services by McManamy. The question is merely whether, under the existing circumstances, Madson has the right, with or without cause, to discharge his attorney of record at any time, without first fully compensating him.

In 6 C. J. 676, it is said: “The law is well settled that a client has the right to discharge his attorney at any time either with or without cause. * * * The relation between attorney and client is such that the client is justified in seeking to dissolve that relation whenever he ceases to have absolute confidence in either the integrity, the judgment or the capacity of the attorney. Such applications are ordinarily allowed as a matter of course, unless it appears that some good reason exists which justifies the court in refusing to make the order. The client himself, however, must desire the change. * * * This right of discharge exists even though *...