Majority
Headnote
Attorney and Client—Lien—Incompetent Client. 'An incompetent person, prior to judicial declaration to that effect, has the right to employ an attorney. At most, such a contract is voidable as any other contract of an insane person before the fact has been judicially determined. Blinn v. Schwarz, 177 N. Y. 252 , 69 N. E. 542 , 101 Am. St. Rep. 806 . Unless it is shown that some advantage was taken of the principal’s infirmity, it would seem that the right to employ an attorney stands, perhaps, on a securer footing than other contracts. And this is so from the very necessities of the case. Before the court has taken unto itself the custody of the incompetent’s property and the administration of his affairs, the employment of one to safeguard his interests is a proper and wise precaution. There may be sufficient intelligence to recognize incompetency especially in the case of increasing senility, as here, and the wisdom of delegating the protecting of one’s business affairs to an attorney. Even one judicially declared incompetent may in effect retain counsel to secure a discharge or release from the court’s wardship, and, in the event of nonsuccess, the attorney’s charge for services is properly paid out of the incompetent’s estate. Matter of Larner, 68 App. Div. 320 , 74 N. Y. Supp. 70 . In the case at bar the employment would seem to be sufficiently established. As an incident, the attorney’s liens attached to the bank books that came into his possession in the course of" that employment. While the determination of Mrs. Stenton’s insanity terminated the agency and employment of the attor
An order should be entered directing the surrender of the books and papers to the committee, and a reference should be liad to determine the amount of the lien. The order should contain a provision directing the committee to retain in its hands sufficient funds to satisfy the amount which may be awarded on the reference.
Cases cited
- Blinn v. Schwarz 177 N. Y. 252 p. 295
- In re Larner 68 App. Div. 320 p. 295
- In re Otis 101 N. Y. 580 p. 296
- Grant v. Humbert 114 App. Div. 462 at 465, 100 p. 296