Marquam

Marquam v. Vachon

Good Law
5 Alaska Fed. 278·7 F.2d 607·1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3604
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 14, 1925No. 4464California358 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hunt, J.

(after stating the facts as above) >

A contract by which an attorney is employed is of a character which distinguishes it from most contracts of employment. The distinction has recently been commented upon in Martin v. Camp, 219 N.Y. 170 , 114 N.E. 46 , L.R.A.1917F, 402, where the New York Court of Appeals, after citing earlier cases in unanimous opinion, said:

The relationship of attorney and client rests upon such confidential and personal elements that it is wise that dissolution may be had at the will of the client, and the decisions go to the extent of holding that the right of the client to dismiss the attorney, whether with or without cause and at any time, is an implied condition of the contract of employment. 2 R.C.L. 957. Therefore dismissal of the attorney, arbitrarily or without cause, does not constitute a breach. The Court of Appeals of New York refers to a number of cases which take a different view, but our inclination is in accord with those which sustain the right of termination at the will of the client, and which hold that, where the client exercises his undoubted right to settle the suit without consulting his attorney, the attorney cannot recover in damages…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.