Fitchette v. Taylor

Decision Date18 May 1934
Docket NumberNo. 29958.,29958.
Citation191 Minn. 582,254 N.W. 910
PartiesFITCHETTE et al. v. TAYLOR et al.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

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 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 one process of settling an issue of legal right and wrong. Many are disposed of without suit. But the disposition of such issues for others, by advice and negotiation, for hire, is as much the practice of law as though process and pleadings, with or without trial, were necessary. Counsel as to legal status and rights, and conduct in respect thereto, are as much a special function of the English solicitor and the American lawyer as diagnosis, prognosis, and prescription are in the special field of medicine. There is no occasion to attempt definition of the practice of law. In re Otterness, 181 Minn. 254, 232 N. W. 318, 73 A. L. R. 1319. It is enough that, under any permissible definition, the subject of this injunction was the practice of law by a layman and so unlawful. People v. People's Stock Yards State Bank, 344 Ill. 462, 176 N. E. 901;People v. Alfani, 227 N. Y. 334, 125 N. E. 671. If compensation is exacted, ‘all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law’ are practicing law. In re Duncan, 83 S. C. 186, 65 S. E. 210,24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 750,18 Ann. Cas. 657.

2. So far there is no real debate. The question stressed for defendant Taylor is whether by his unlawful conduct he made himself a proper target for an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
92 cases
  • West Virginia State Bar v. Earley
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1959
    ...Court of Polk County, 232 Iowa 623, 5 N.W.2d 914; Lowell Bar Association v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 52 N.E.2d 27; Fitchette v. Taylor, 191 Minn. 582, 254 N.W. 910, 94 A.L.R. 356; Hulse v. Criger, 363 Mo. 26, 247 S.W.2d 855; New Jersey State Bar Association v. Northern New Jersey Mortgage Assoc......
  • Kwass v. Kersey, 10622
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 16, 1954
    ...to practice law is a property right. Unger v. Landlords' Management Corporation, 114 N.J.Eq. 68, 168 A. 229; Fitchette v. Taylor, 191 Minn. 582, 254 N.W. 910, 94 A.L.R. 356; Montgomery County Bar Ass'n v. Rinalducci, 329 Pa. 296, 197 A. 924. The property right in the practice of a professio......
  • Merrick v. American Security & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • October 9, 1939
    ...dissented from the judgment of reversal on the ground that there was evidence which supported the conviction. 4 Fitchette v. Taylor, 191 Minn. 582, 254 N.W. 910, 94 A.L.R. 356. 5 People ex rel. Chicago Bar Association v. Goodman, 366 Ill. 346, 8 N.E.2d 941, 111 A.L.R. 1, certiorari denied 3......
  • Bump v. District Court of Polk County
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • October 27, 1942
    ... ... 480, 94 P. 349; ... People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Ellis, 44 Colo. 176, ... 96 P. 783; People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Taylor, ... 56 Colo. 441, 138 P. 762; Anderson v. Coolin, 27 Idaho 334, ... 149 P. 286; In re Eastern Idaho Loan & Trust ... [5 N.W.2d 917] ... Co., ... Junior Bar Ass'n of Milwaukee v. Rice, 236 ... Wis. 38, 294 N.W. 550; Grand Rapids Bar Ass'n v. Denkema, ... 290 Mich. 56, 287 N.W. 377; Fitchette v. Taylor, 191 Minn ... 582, 254 N.W. 910, 94 A.L.R. 356, and cases cited in note ...         Under the ... Constitution of Iowa, vesting ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT