Note 50 — PROFESSIONAL ETHICS.

Clippinger v. Hepbaugh, 5 Watts. & Serg. 315; Marshall v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co., 16 Howard (S. C.) Rep. 336. That champerty is an offence at common law, and that contracts of that character, between client and counsel, are void on that ground, and as against public policy, will be found to have been maintained in Rust v. Larue, 4 Litt. 411; Caldwell's Administrators v. Shepherd's Heirs, 6 Monroe, 391; Thurston v. Percival, 1 Pick. 415; Arden v. Patterson, 5 Johns. Ch. Rep. 48; Bleakley's case, 5 Paige, 311; Wallis v. Loubert, 2 Denio, 607; Backus v. Byron, 4 Michigan, 535; Elliott v. McClelland, 17 Alabama, 206. The cases on the other side, are, Thallhimer v. Brinckerhoff, 3 Cowen, 643; Ramsay's Devisees v. Trent, 10 B. Monroe, 336; Bayard v. McLane, 3 Harrington, 216; Lytle v. State, 17 Arkansas, 608; Newkirk v. Cone, 18 Illinois, 449; Major v. Gibson, 1 Patton Jr. & Heath (Va.), 48; Wright v. Meek, 3 Iowa, 472. In New York, by the Revised Statutes, it was made an offence, punishable by fine or imprisonment, and removal from the Bar, for any attorney, counsellor, or solicitor, directly or indirectly to buy, or be in any manner interested in buying, or to advance or procure money to be advanced upon anything in action, with the intent, or for the purpose of bringing any suit thereon. 2 Revised Stat. 386. The Code of Procedure appears to have changed the law in this respect, and to enable parties to make such bargains as they please with their attorneys. Code of Procedure, s. 258; Satterlee v. Frazer, 2 Sandf. S. C. Rep. 142; Benedict v. Stuart, 23 Barb. 420; Ogden v. Des Arts, 4 Duer (N. Y.), 275; Sedgwick v. Stanton, 4 Kernan, 289. In Kentucky there appears to be a statute, which provides that any one not a party, receiving as compensation for services in prosecuting or defending a suit the whole or part of the subject-matter in suit, is guilty of champerty, and it has been held that this statute extends to attorneys. Davis v. Sharron, 15 B. Monroe, 64. In England, contingent fees are held to be clearly within the statutes of champerty and maintenance. Penrice v. Parker, Rep. Temp. Finch, 75.