In the Matter of the Application of Ella M. Cable, Appellant, to Restrain Henry W. Sackett and Others, Respondents, from Acting as Her Attorneys at Law

In the Matter of the Application of Ella M. Cable, Appellant, to Restrain Henry W. Sackett and Others, Respondents, from Acting as Her Attorneys at Law. First Department, July 12, 1906. Attorney and client — dismissal of attorney on settlement of case — practice — protecting attorney’s lien. Although a client may discharge an attorney at will, the attorney must he protected to the extent of the services already perforiued. When a client wishes to end a litigation and discharge her attorney she should . not he compelled to move for a substitution o.f attorneys. A reference should he had to take proof of the compensation to which the attorney is entitled and upon payment thereof the attorney should he ordered,' if requested, to discontinue the action or to proceed no further therein. Appeal by the petitioner, Ella M. Cable, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the comity of New York on the 17th day of April, 1906, denying the petitioner’s motion to restrain Henry W. Sackett and others from taking any further proceedings on her behalf. J. Aspinwall Hodge, for the appellant. Edward L. Stevens, for the respondents. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam :] Per Curiam : We assume the rule to be settled that a client may terminate the employment of attorneys at pleasure, or the attorney may do so upon reasonable notice. (Bathgate v. Haskin, 59 N. Y. 533.) Where the client, however, desires to dispense with the services, it should only be upon protecting the attorney to the extent of services already performed. We, therefore, think that the order in this case should not have been denied upon the ground that the petitioner’s remedy ivas to move for substitution of attorneys, because that would not give her the relief which she desired, which was, to end the litigation; and if she substituted new attorneys she- would have to make the same request of them, and if they refused there would he" the same result. The simple and direct procedure would have been to grant the application upon condition that the matter be referred to some suitable person to take proof as to the amount of compensation to which the attorneys are entitled and, upon payment thereof, that they should, if requested by the client, discontinue the action or, at least, not proceed further with the litigation. The order should be accordingly modified, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Present — O’Brien, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Houghton, JJ. Order modified as indicated in opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice.