Fitchette v. Taylor, 29958.

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Writing for the Court: STONE
• Citation: 191 Minn. 582,254 N.W. 910
• Parties: FITCHETTE et al. v. TAYLOR et al.
• Docket Number: No. 29958.,29958.
• Decision Date: 18 May 1934

191 Minn. 582
254 N.W. 910

FITCHETTE et al.
v.
TAYLOR et al.

No. 29958.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 18, 1934.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; A. W. Selover, Judge.

Action by Elwood Fitchette and others against Arthur C. Taylor and others. From an adverse judgment, the named defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. If for compensation, counsel as to legal status and rights of another and conduct in respect thereto constitutes the practice of law. Such practice by laymen is unlawful.

2. The criminality of an act, or series of acts, does not bar injunctive relief if otherwise there is ground for it.

3. Injunction is a proper remedy to prevent such practice, when asked by attorneys acting for themselves and other affected members of their profession. The character of their special right to practice law, as a special privilege or franchise and so a property right, is enough to justify relief by injunction.

Mason W. Spicer, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

W. W. Gibson, of Minneapolis (Stanley B. Houck and Walter S. Lundeen, both of Minneapolis, of counsel), for respondents.

STONE, Justice.

Appeal by defendant Arthur C. Taylor from a judgment enjoining him from ‘(a) Furnishing opinion as to the right to maintain an action against others. (b) Drawing contracts, releases and affidavits for others. (c) Furnishing legal services or advice to others. (d) Soliciting, settling or adjusting personal injury claims or otherwise engaging in the practice of law.’

The case was tried by the court on a stipulated statement of facts. Plaintiffs, Elwood Fitchette and Thomas Vennum, are president and secretary, respectively, of the Hennepin

[254 N.W. 911]

County Bar Association. They bring the action for themselves, the members of the Hennepin County Bar Association, and all other attorneys at law, the public, and the courts of Hennepin county. Defendant Taylor and his associates, none of them members of the bar, doing business as the Minnesota Adjusting Association, ‘solicited, advertised for, and held themselves out, as being engaged in the business of adjusting and settling claims for personal injuries and collecting the claimed damages therefor’ for a consideration, usually a contingent fee of 33 1/3 per cent. They ‘proffered their services to injured persons who were claimants for prospective damages on account of personal injuries.’ Upon employment, they ‘defined the legal rights of said injured persons and the legality of the said alleged claims' and gave them legal advice and counsel ‘both with reference to the question of liability against prospective defendants and the amount of damages.’ They ‘interviewed witnesses and secured statements relative to the claims which they purported to handle, in order to enable them to give said claimants legal advice and opinion as to the collectibility thereof and in order to enable said defendants to discuss, advocate and argue said legal rights and liabilities in the course of presenting said claims and negotiating the settlement thereof.’ For their employers, they negotiated with insurance companies and others for settlement.

1. The facts make a case of the practice of law by a layman, which is in any view unlawful. The conduct of litigation is by no means all of legal practice. A lawsuit is but...