Opinion
March 20, 1930.
April 14, 1930.
Attorneys-at-law — Fees — Estates of lunatics — Charges to be moderate.
1. Where an attorney-at-law is employed by the next of kin of a lunatic, and renders services to the estate of the lunatic, and his services are to be paid out of the estate, the fees must be just and moderate, and will only be allowed on the most moderate scale of compensation.
2. In this case a fee claimed of $100,000 was reduced to $50,000.
Argued March 20, 1930.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
Appeal, No. 60, March T., 1930, by Catherine Hibbert, next of kin, from order of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1920, No. 260, allowing attorney fee, in estate of Eleanor H. Davidson, a lunatic. Decree modified.
Application for allowance of attorney fee. Before DREW, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Fee of $100,000 allowed for professional services.
Catherine Hibbert, next of kin, appealed.
Error assigned, inter alia, was order, quoting record.
F. C. McGirr, for appellant.
W. W. Montgomery, Jr., with him Owen Roberts, of Roberts Montgomery, for appellees.
The court below allowed a fee of $100,000 to counsel, employed by the next of kin of a lunatic, for valuable legal services rendered to the estate of the lunatic. It is conceded by appellant that the attorneys in question were entitled to compensation for services rendered, but it is contended that the fee allowed is too large. After examining the voluminous record in this case, and heeding the carefully prepared and well presented arguments of counsel, we are of one mind that the contention of appellant is well taken. Appellees were employed upon the express understanding that they were to be paid out of the funds of the lunatic, and, as lawyers, they knew this court had early ruled that charges against such an estate must be "manifestly just and moderate": Wier v. Myers, 34 Pa. 377, 380. See also Equitable Trust Co., Committee, v. Garis, 190 Pa. 544, 552, where we said that in such cases "fees and charges of all kinds should be allowed only on the most moderate scale of compensation." Keeping in mind the fact that appellees' services were of value in saving to the estate in question considerable funds, which it might have lost, and also that counsels' charges must be paid out of the funds of this lunatic, we conclude that, under all the circumstances, the fee which appellant expressed willingness to pay, $50,000, is proper compensation.
The decree of the court below is modified by changing the figure contained therein from $100,000 to $50,000; costs to be paid out of the estate of the lunatic.