Decision no. ... in the matter of fixing reasonable fees for attorneys or agents under the authority of Section 9 of the...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Decision no. ... in the matter of fixing reasonable fees for attorneys or agents under the authority of Section 9 of the "Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928."
At head of title:
American Commissioner
Physical Description:
v. : ; 23 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Mixed Claims Commission, United States and Germany
Publisher:
U.S. G.P.O.
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C
Publication Date:
Frequency:
completely irregular

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
World War, 1914-1918 -- Claims -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Claims vs. Germany -- Periodicals -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
serial   ( sobekcm )

Notes

Dates or Sequential Designation:
No. 1 -
General Note:
Title from cover.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 004822591
oclc - 50038280
System ID:
AA00008543:00023

Full Text




,%j!


I l1


. DE


TORY


AMERICAN


COMMISSIONER


MIXED


CLAIMS


COMMISSION


UNITED


STATES


AND


GERMANY


DECISION NO. 59


IN THE MATrER


.i:: REASONABLE


FEES


FOR


ATTORNEYS


OR


8'TINDER
. a .


THE


AUTHORITY


SECTION


9 OF


SMENT OF WAR


CLAIMS


ACT OF


1928 "


ItI.
~t:.! '::


6:it


DOCKET NOS.


6848 AND 6630-6632


Colby


and


as Oil Company and the


Aii.

.:: .'.I. :. *t : *
:ti :*. *... ,**
"4- .


CHANDLER


Edward


Brown


ANDERSON


American Commissioner


Esr.


*iikL .*


I.
' Z


ing Company, Claimants


United States Asphalt Refin-


SAttorneys


r

I
I.!i.i: ':~




.....
"4 E


' ii



. : ....:.n-

":: ":E :::
.: U
* .. : .. ..




.. '. "
.......... :.... I


... ..JL ...."*" A


MIXED


CLAIMS


COMMISSION,


UNITED


STATES


AND


EstabHshed in puzuance of the Agreement between the


United States and


Germany of August 10, 1922


CHANDLER AND PERSON


American Comafissioner

(II)


H..,i
:I r*

.Iii


. -' HI


.












iiiii:.:.:: i:




::iW:
Ii-fl:


HE


MIXED


UNITED


CLAIMS


STATES


COMMISSIONER


COMMISSION


AND


GERMANY


DECISION


IN THE


NO.


MATTER


REASONABLE


FEES


FOR


ATTORNEYS


OR


!iNTS


UNDER


THE


"SETTLEMENT
. :': : "
IE*:^::,"i".:*
***:j IE- ^ '-.
-i '. :: ,- *.
.
9.


AUTHORITY


WAR


CLAIMS


SECTION


ACT


9 OF
1928"


li*HI..
.LHI.
.11..
.N.:'~


DOCKET


NOS.


6848


AND


6630-6632


Inrteroeaem


Company


Refining


and


Company,


United


States


Claimants


H ..
k: iiiiji:
~U~riHH


acinhridge


Colby


above


CJoxxxnissiorier


and


named


Edward


Brown,


claimants


a written


duly


request that


A attorneys


filed


with


a reasonable


.:.
..b.i be paid by each of them to their attorneys, Bainbridge Colby
Ewar D. Brown, of New York, New York, as compensation
IN--


: whatever services have


been


rendered


by the said


attorneys on


'I~


with


ita inf .h a.ra h ptm.r


authority


rtAai/ k0Al


of the


said


claimants


7%n /nttt a i f aT


such


Qnnd.;nn


services


*Afl1 ItI t ***ltl *** *j* ***lll **W rItssIf S' *l.*lES *


AMERICAN


:B? i! :.


Asphalt


a ,C





372


considered


fee asked,


tiAon o
n
wh fich
torne
The
;for th
cent o


the Commissioner
which information


the claimants,


have


rS


been


who


transmitted


and for the claimants


amount


aske'


as show


been


have afled dmi


.* *:...:


"... ..'' : ". ::.1
..H,.:H
ng the reasonabst
brought to the a '""1 '


to the attorneys. Cbim


have
d by


filed


briefs


in this


proceed


the attorneys a
^^^ ^^ /^ '**^.i;../< /< f <<1 *^ sil^'i'0


eir series in these laims it Hstythre0


f the amount of the proceeds of the


awards rende]


Commission.


The awards in these claims were rendered on Augw
Parker, Umpire, on a certificate of disagreement of
Commissioners. Under Docket Wo. 6848, an war
behalf of The Interocean Oil Company for $447T,00
thereon at the rate of five per cent per annum from 0
to the date of payment, This amount represents
company's interest, as charterer, in the Norwegian


0.


tank


V
8fl4


Christian Knudsen, at the date of her destruction on


bya


German


submarine, less the


amount of


insurance con


by the claiant


on account


of her


loss.


Under


Docket


Nos.


61, and 6632i an awprd was made on behalf of The
Asphalt Refining Company (a subsidiary of The Interocean


Company


for $150,00'0,


with interest thereon at the


cent per annum


This amount
Sharterer, in


,Silvia,


from November


represents


Brtish


date


the
tank


their


value


1918,


the d


company s


steamers,


l ss.


decisions in these claims


(and in 13 other charter cass,


no wsi
ciples
May 2


was


announced


made I),


Umpire


in Administrative


1925) and No.


followed aid
Decisions


(rende rd Aug' t


4 :


For the


purpose of this proceeding,


The Interocean


I


", ,,


v


A J






373


26, it was engaged in a


very substantial business.


Its officers,


mention


will


hereafter


made,


included


Govin,


St,O. E.


Thurber and a Mr.


Upham


Vice Presidents, George


, Secretary, and Nils B.


Hersloff,


Treasurer.


Messrs.


ham and Whitney are now


dead.


The claimant is now in


Sof liquidation.
attorneys herein are


rfession.


lawyers of high standing and reputation


During the past twenty-five ybars, except for the


Yw hen Mr. Colby wa


Secretary of State for the


United States,


ave been associated as partners in the practice of law.


Prior


* employment in connection with the claims here involved, the


ikeyi had been retained


by the claimant


a number of years


1ial cases, including suits against the claimant instituted by the


[ States Shipping


Board


and


various


companies.


A close


,LI,.u'


Sad^k^


mate relationship existed between Mr. Colby and Mr. Govin,


At as


man


wide


experience


lawyer,


banker,


and


di1 ot disputed that an oral agreement was entered into whereby
.t.t rueys herein were employed to represent the claimant with
Wihee to its claims against Germany upon a one-third contingent
Htl'*"J* VA


In its Brief in this proceeding, however, the claimant con-


.
V.7, :


that


"Mr.


Colby, not


the claimants, suggested


the contingent


~* 4
"a
IT


it in December, 1921


be compelled to devote his


"; that Mr. Colby represented that he


own time and personal attention to


a i aentaton and argument of the claims "; that Mr. Colby rep-


id that he would


be compelled


to retain eminent


Washington


l, to whom he would give up a large part of the fee "; and that


nts'


assent


contingent


agreement


December,


Iwas induced by


Mr.


Colby's representations."


ix Colby in


stement in Mr


affidavit


characterizes


Hersloff's affidavit


as unqualifiedlyy


that


Colby,


false"


"suggested


-~,.. -


u ... ..


SHMiHii" Al .i". ii
"




** ,, ,:. :
.H ",:
". "* H
37 4 ..:*. ...E:.:
.:.. *** "..:
S **.: **:.. :..EE',;*d *,. : :.
S :*:.::*,,, : ,e,,:
i ,,: *,w r or ,ta ,,"
." :: .::,*.: .'i
in procuring an award or that he would have to use all the poli itiwI


influence he had in

able award." He


Washington in order to obtain any sort of fai1S


denies that there was any


agreement, express r'


implied
claims 1

was nol
*KKK X XXX *'*::* I Bfu't ^ l O ][U<^ ^^LJ^^
W aSKKK ::* *.* ..::::::::' :^ l^^^H^E^ ^'^t*
Ka ^ K:^ J-^ -^ >* .. ^j
l^.a, ,,KK ^K' / K yK^K^Br ^ -


, or any understanding, that he personally would present thW

before the proper commission or oar d.


his usual


practice to undertake


matters


fee basis, and that his firm's employment in this case aro senllr .


Said


Govin


only as


a lawyer or banker,


but as


public affairs very closely as they


were


reported in


the daily


eeived the idea in connection with the tiblic discussion of 06i~4~i


ied, sifted and adjudged for damages arising from


German


operations in t.


war, that a claim might be made out fo the Intero~an i 0
had sufered pome serious losses in connection with"the tank t
they were operating under time charter when the war broke out. S
often discussed this subject in a more or less tentative way wE epo
making a little progress each time toward clarity of idea about tee.ui
T was a numebsinn ilnnn rwnhh a- tfhe "ima nf thaaa rliicnni innL nn nna rrlil


LI *. ao *U.4 qA C1L


V.A La


TV *AU.L'^


(a LU LIJG VLBAA


La tJ~ 'IfL FU


give an opinion that was more than tentative or provisional.


discussed the subject at that time with anyone of the Interocean Oil Companyl


except
pany


its President
were almost e


Mr. Govin.


exclusively


confined


, deponent'!


to Mr


said Govin came to the opinion that he would


Govin
like t(


s contacts wi the c-
, the President. Finally, i
) have "a try at it" sand


asked this
deponent by


leponent i he
said Govin in


thought,
a very


imptessions


fragmentary


of the


and superfiia -
...i |


enmpany had any chance of recovery. Depo
to said Govin, not wishing to encourage him


nent expressed himself
in what appeared ad


ver speanlative undertaking. Finally, said Govin came to dekpon
and said that he would appreciate it very much if deponent and


ing his old partner, Mr. Brown,


with whom he was still in


cops


tirb s ould look into the matter and tak su st i as
proper submission and to secure, if possible, an adjudication n and awara e


Said Govin further


explained


RMunch in the claims
fond of money and part


that


that they


none


of hit


were very


.icularly ready money,


s associates thought that thi .:
hard-headed and practical Sme,:,
and that they "id ot desire -.
*, :,,
"'" i


..'
"
.1..
vii.
"ilii


::


::,": "
";: ,:"
i"!" "

L~,:
liBli$: i


? :,1,


,:U


jb;~fi~S~l~i


LIIGLJ~ ULU~UJJ~VUJ


)







375


basis


except


on the basis


of contingent


compensation.


listened to this
C"^.*L :
S .!..


suggestion with open mind


*. company for a period in


Eifi:::::::::::::::::::
hP


situations


he had


excess


of ten years


contracted


he had already been counsel


he had seen it through


a familiarity


with


Govin


Aing intimacy


he did


g, such as Govin or a


: Mr. Govin stated


not feel


that he could


company with which


that if


repulse a friend


his relations


deponent and his partner, Brown,


of long
been as


would do


i.would see that they received one-third of whatever sum was recovered.
S 'N ::' ".....


1W talked this matter over with Mr.
telling him to acquiesce with Mr.

l Mr. Govin that deponent and his
!4 i lKy.~ ,


e matter on the terms proposed.


Brown and told him the considera-


Govin' s


suggestion and subsequently


associate Mr. Brown


would under-


si.: I


1ffi. -.ui


Bars from Mr


Govin stated


~tin


it-
La1a"
I
wHjb
EL*ii.~E4.
I .1i fl:
I.


December


that


had


ie. agreement with
idH :*. : t


Thurber'


"-a


1921.
been


and
Mr.


affidavit on-behalf


t the conference which


and


which


discussing with


that


Colby


had


been


concerning hi


Colby


Mr.


of the claimant
claimant alleges


denies


Colby


our


endeavoring


fee."


having
claims


come


It is clear,


that


prior to


alleged


conference,


Messrs.


Govin


and


had discussed the Question of compensation.


M**inot disputed that on December 28,


1922


the claimant executed


reris of attorney appointing
i3F : "


nt and


Mr. Brown-


prosecute its claim against


the Goverment of Germany


before


:ii..HH!.1
Hit
thimwan


claims


Commission


United


States


German


s sustained by it in consequence of the war


contend


that


" subsequent to the


for indemniiica-


* *


filing of the claims in


iber,


1922.


"received


no further


word


from


Colby


town on this subject until about July


10, 1924,


when Mr. Colby


s-Mr. Govin the letter hereafter quoted.


.American
e. American


Commi


Agency


ssioner


examined


before


files


and


records


Commission,


a.to course


Sal


to the files or records of either the claimant or the


***4b** h


S


'Y I II


i m


#.




**** :,, **,..:
- 1' :l.^
*:


ti


further inquiry with reference to the claims herein and a claim fii '


bty him on behalf of the claimant for additional hire upon the steazk .


~ir1LL




I~I,~x The


Aztec, Breifond, Borgestad, and


Christian Krtden.


.(Do* .
^^ .r!3R3 U .IHI *,~^^Bp^^i^^>Tl^j~piii


253.)


.Colby states in his affidavit


(pages 11 and 12): .. 3:41
*, .


work was undertaen, the investigations were made; they


-


laboriously and


on a ve


the sustained attention


ry broad scale, involving the
of deponent and Mr. Brown.


for nearly two years without any writing to confirm


fees.


unremitting eor
U .. **::***__ **-:-:f..I::::r e:: ..,:^^.............. ..... -* ,..., .Z


A*
rIii* -A


The ,
the ur


Both deponent and said Brown had imlicit confidence ln


was not until the lat Spring of 19i4 that deponent in thsork


which he had with said Govin remarked to Govin


preparation of these claims for


submission


to the


that the invest
Commission


great deal of time and that it would be a good idea to have some writf
memorandum of the arrangement regarding the compensation of deonent


said Edwa] 0 D. Brown.


It was suggested that the cases would a


considerable


time,


as such


matters


already involved much work and


always


move


slowly,


would continue to do so.


a that the
avin with:nI


Imomentis hesitation said


" You are right, and I shall be happy ~-to conr.m


understanding in any form


that you deem appropriate."


He said,


"Send me


a memorandum and I wil send it to you properly signed.


with my assoIates as a matter of formt"


I want to take it


This was about a


ponaet reported to Mr. Brown that he had had this talk with Mr. Govin, and


Little


later


wrote


letter


July


'Ott


which


appears


aidavit at page 5.


Mr. Colby's letter of July



MY DEAR RALPH: Brown spol


.11
:E::X ^BV.:


10, 1924, to Mr. Govin is


to me the other day about te


of having the matter of our compensation put in terms a mo
than 1rw mutual understanding, particularly with reference to
we are carrying forward on a contingent basis, whinh i


~Orm~g


hope, of substantial recovery.
The demands on us in the


!se matters, as well


as of the more rn


H:E


iqi;d



b:" x,::,
,:
:::E
WP":
:E::,
::i
:ii


~B"P:;


R7fi


ruu wrr







377


.'has prepared some short n
.lnd I assume that there can
the company.
th:6:


;iiScerely yours,


..:,.ference to


" our mutual


memoranda
U


of agreements,


which


are en-


be no hesitation about signing them


(Signed)


understanding "


BArINBIDGE COLBY.


is in confirmation


SColby's


statement


discussed


solely


that


between


attorneys'


Mr.


Govin


compensation


and


himself.


was
The


.." i. "
m 1 *i


"defensive


which


ler reference to


fights "


attorneys


" your


relates to


herein


litigation against the


represented


bringing the


subject


claimant.
whenever


Sable to you to do so is understood to mean that Mr. Colby


Mr.


Govin


present


matter


compensation


-ii


1924,


claimant


Mr.


Govin)


wrote


as follows:


tested we are enclosing signed memoranda expressing the understand-


idy had regarding your compensation


-h. Germany,


and Navy


in the Carteret matter,


Claims


Department Claim.


ipnpreciate very much all that you have been


doing for us, and,


believe


3 was enclosed


with thi


: ; ." "
-ah
gJfr. Bainbridge Colby.
t Edward D. Brown.
S|ras" against Germany.


confirm


our


letter the


understanding


that


following


your


agreement


contingent


shall


we and


. .ii ..*. .
lk tese
i~ f^ ^ ^ ^


one-third


claims,


(33% %)


cover


both


cent


yourselves


of the amount


your


received


Washington


corre-


.1k'........
:V HI 4


New York, July


16, 1924.


THu


IN~floOEAN


COMPANY,


;::-,' By R. B. Govnv, President.
, ::: .* -


"ii i.'i.


11; ::I11






378


affidavits.
letter, tra


<<~Ec;;i<^^^!.^^KKa^-^^-. ^*^- /


They


also


call


attention


nlsmitting the signed


agreement,


Fact
states


that


clai


in unqualified is l?
.. :


We appreciate very much all that you hav@et


ere is nothing whatever


in the


record


show th


aomg iTq
at at a
*a**


time Mr


Govin wa


not duly informed as to the character and estent
"...:.*..i : .:


herein.


work
All


contemplated


or performed


contemporaneous


written


each


memoran


df the atto
da between thi'tla. .'


parties tends tocororoate the atteriry tn A w


oral arrangement


under which


the attorneys were employed


resent the claimant in this case,


1i: IX i: i i


Mr.


Colby points out in his affidavit that two similar.n


Lain


identical form were executed by the claimant on July 16, 1924,-i
the retainer in this case was signed, and, as indicated in claims


~iatV~


covering letter,


were transmitted


these attorneys


a claim


against the


War


Department


arising


front


claimant


plant


Carteret,


New


Jersey, ;f


and reerection at Baltimore, and the other, involving a claim
the Navy Department for oil requisitioned by the Nav


rrflbt


II


Mr.


Colby states that the payment of fees nder th


well as the regularity and due authorization of their execute,


never the


growth


subjects of any controversy, and


same


conversations


above


d


were_.j^^|&^^g


that "they were the oiiV. .
detailed with said Govini
", :vvd .


udid they .were acepted and pursued precisely a


involved in thi


proceeding.


Claimant further


contends that at the time


o0f taB'ilpn


attorneys


failed


disclose


important


and


changes in the manner and method of procedure


"; and that cla4


ants would not have made the contingent agreement had they kno
the facts."


In support of thi


contention it is stated that-


*.: .i


Sli'
.1,
.119


of


A~ >v~


""~-~~~-~~"-~~~~~"~~~~~~"~~~"~~"~"~~~"~"


1


~~I,:


;:.


r...... I.......,..... yy.:...y L


*"


m m






379


i' *
3ni.ant, however,
... I


rules


of this


fails to take into consideration


Commi


ssion


differ


that


substantially


pro-
from


wf other international claims commissions.


Moreover, the pro-


Siidopted by
r of common


this


Commission


knowledge


more


in dealing with


than


a year


before


claims


July,


was


1924.


it time five administrative deci


ions and general


opinions and


ar of award


had already been


rendered by this Commission.


:''written
*kri:! *..


agreement of


*t Germany. In addition
Re fee-fixing proceeding, Mr


July


1924,


the claims


included


which


claims


the subject


Brown states that the attorneys rep-


the claimant in three other matters
bttAire; (2) a claim for possible losses a


(1)


A claim for addi-


Rising out of


Ee Nederlandsche Oil Company of Flushing,


Holland


a contract


and


i for war risk insurance premiums.


The attorneys allege that


jatial services were rendered on behalf of the claimant in these


ters, but that since,
'. Sl ce


as has already been


tated, awards were not


ed, no compensation has been or can be charged.


IC *-t.
mA ta
,' .vecern
iiit .i:r


ber,


)rneys


1925


, a disagreement


herein


with


arose


regard


in litigation against the claimant.


between tl
attorneys'


Sclaimant
compensa-


The attorneys herein


I J


t. a valuation <
ints requested


approximately


other


attorneys


$150,000


upon


represent


their


them


services.


in thi


liti-


and


an application


a Court


was


State


made
' New


in an action


York


pending in


a substitution


Upon Mr. Brown


iish a


bond in


the sum


objection,


the claimant


of $40,000 to secure


was required
fees for pro-


1. services


and


claim


was


referred


a referee.


Sub-


Lly, a compromise on the amount of counsel fee to be paid Mr.


w as reached


and


was embodied in


following letter


APRIL 8TH, 1926.


IaBtDGE COLBY,


,, -4


:'









3. Claim against the Navy Department. .. .I!
4. 1920 Tax matter. .
380 .





*ou. .v* .:ery tr u..:
THE INTEROCEAN O n COMPrA1ir ;. .:.I .^1^
0. EN. THuBEsn, Vi""ce Pre en D a e
4. 1920 Tax matter- .-i
"":.':* *:" *': '.:






Enclosure. *.
.... ....
A .* .:. :. ..
.. .*
S, "'. : '" :


By ,l D. B.


that


for ou


matters except those on a


! I l
.i.,i


: .. h E i: i
this letter amounts to a confirmation >t
ment of July 16, 1924, and that,- -- "
.. : ."* .. r: .i
r acceptance of the $40,000 as eatisfa ,


.4 91
H! lp
n~at4.:1j*


contingent basis nli
iese matters to a conclusion o


*. n ..!**..
I have no recollection that I personally framed or dictated the clause in that .;
letter leading ,'with regardB to which we had specific agreements as to come i


Brown


clea r,


wuolly
and ii


subsequently


favor or


acluded


using


in the
that


lrown
letter
letter


UolDb


ror tne


as an exni


order to buttress his claims under the contingent agreement.


In his reply affidavit, Mr. Brown states:


0R


At that time [April 8,


1926]


no question had ever been raised by any j


connected with the Interocean Oi
intention of performing them, bi


Company as


ut on


to these agreements or as to tf


the contrary they had continually


that


these contracts would


be carried


out to


the letter.


we at


time anticipate or even dream that any such question would ever be raised.


No objection


the contingent fee


agreement in


this case ap:


to have been communicated to the attorneys until' June 8, 1928, a


nnf nfl nsa


L'Q ~ 1n a n


"In-


1000 ,


. r **.- II *z Ya *I .OIUI *.aI .-.e ..a..a. S.. SE *.U *IL SI'I *I. **--.-. *. Srw


iDjWARD DU BROWNN.
BAINBRIDGE COLBY


The


attorneys contend


and ratification of its fee agree


A part of the
of fees in all


. consideration


S


that we would be allowed to prosecute t


' .existing contingent contracts.

"^f Thabe^r s-lateR Sin his affidavit:


evidently
purpose,


That graturtous .cause,


dictated


as is


now


-7-f


.i ::


A ,e


I








'. Whitney at. that time if such a bill was passed and held to be consti-


:that we would have to abide by it and would make no effort to evade it.


IsiL..E E


June


1928,


however,


Mr.


Hersloff


wrote


Mr.


Brown


L Estates of Mr. Govin, Mr. Upham, and Mr. Whitney have made a demand
It'Directors of the Interocean Oil Company that they apply to the American
jS^ >


suioner of the Mixed Claims Commi


ai d to attorneys in
EL IH **


ssion for a determination of the fee


the matter of the claims made and awarded to the


Iae.an Oil Company and the United States Asphalt Refining Company.
|ig.Elstates represent the majority in interest in the award, there was no 4


open to the Directors than to make application pursuant to provision of


d.j' No. 9 of the
jhb done.


" Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928," which accordingly


IC
,. C. *
'lb


S
C.
*isst*


I':"


*. Brown


points


affidavit,


in commenting upon


this


H.ersloff did not say in that letter that he or the other officers thought


a


*:it
tiEA* br I.e
.l*X -
els:.its '


ee was unreasonable or that they


had been induced


the fee


under misapprehension or a misstatement of the facts by us.


Brief in this proceeding claimant states that "the value of


S"prvices actually rendered bears no reasonable relation
Hp ..'.. u


to the fee


~iI~ded,",


and


claimant


requests


that


"the


contingent


agree-


S:.should be entirely disregarded," and that a fee should be fixed


rn the basi


simply of quantum meruit."


:.'their


Brief in thi


proceeding the attorneys point out that the


rant,


"under the New


York law


(Maertin v


Camp, 219 N


170)


!have at any time and for any reason, or without reason, severed


ns with


counsel,


with


only


a quantum


meruit


liability."


i-is repeated in the attorneys' Reply Brief as follows:


would


~;&yaerse
i1ODI Iiirn


have


to than


to be due


involved,


however,


the contingent
on the basis


** :f time and notwithstanding a


something


fee contract,
f a quantum


complete


which
namely


meruit.


rupture in


the claimants


a payment


Through all
the personal


were


of the


rela-


other


TnIr7.W


krr


,d0 i;. i


'"" ''


.'w'


I


i


B; tr


I:





382


The character of the work and the responsibility


incident t1


appear from a description


attorneys
claims; a
Norway


services


included


m examination


arbitration


contained in Mr. Brown'


a complete


and


detailed


consideration


various


affidavit.


study


the pa pers 3ed in the


administrative


:H. I
)r:.. i:
,:~ljiIr," ::
Il i~1


%ns of this Commission; conferences in N York Kitt
with representatives of the American Agent* consideration of bd -


in analogous li
certain evidence;
Gilbert, manager


an expert


tiesey,


H....:


*7:' .''.".; : : .
maS; employment of counsel in England to se pu
preparation of affidavits; collaboration with H. Ai,


of


claimant'


on shipping


marine department,


and


charters;


stud


aliT
and li
I..
analysis, ait4


decl
S* *


examination of the


position


taken


German


A~n


ferenes with attorneys for other claimants, etc.


* H. *11.
'*1


Claimant


contends


that


view


fact


that


paid


1Ms~;fUiij


Gilbert and Whittlesey for their services in


obtaining information which


the agreed


ffee of


one-third


was
of


preparing afi


submitted in support o
he amount r eovieret


.aVltS aS


: the clemi


I
Si
-I
H


ItL


must


demanded


recognized,
assistance (


however,


that


part


the
the


circumstance
Sclaimant, a]


attorneys were jistfied
for this assistance. Ti


by the


claims


resultss
were


in calling upon thi
carefully prepare


'I cls~maizni~::;i


pi~r t!


.e.d by the attorneys, and the energy and success witr
erie an success"


were


prosecuted


how


e interests


that


their


the a
client,


ittorne
who


devoted


certainly


their


has


H


complain about the outcome of the case.
_ Admis hinted out by the American bonnisibemi
Administrative and Jurisdictional Decision on Septemh 2,


and as held by


him in his previous


decisions in similar cases


( "^ ," :, "ii
cD~i-t


sion Nos.


is entirely


1, 3,


8.25


competent


i, 46,
look


53, 56, and 58), where the claim


after


own


interests


in maki


fee agreement with his attorney, he


falls within


the group ref


- -~~'


__________ ________________________________________ I I 1 111:


1


~,
"":



" ,'" ,"


c, E,:


i, r, Lt, _. __I__ _L E._____ Lt 'I1_____I L1__ n


u


!


~-"::::-


lie





383


guage used by the Commissioner in Decision No. 3 is applica-


iEhe instant case.


It was there said


(pages 42-43) :


* important to note that the claimant had previously retained
'as his attorneys in many substantial cases, out of which they received


gating over $150,000.


lnnt.serv
MI.services.


attorneys


* *


* was well aware of the scale of charges of this firm


*
employed


the claimant


are a firm


of high


standing


n in the profession, and recognized as


one of the leading firms in New


1..,'*
FI


*


It was not the usual practice of


these attorneys


handle claims


itingent basis.


mant


*


* undoubtedly knew that the fee in this case under. a


t agreement would be larger than on


the ordinary basis of payment,


N":
Veib~ive


of whether


or not there


was


recovery,


because


of the certainty


ae payment of a contingent fee would
rextainty whether it would ever be paid.
ge ',,


it the contingent element in


in any event be delayed, and of
Nevertheless, the claimant now


the service agreement


be disregarded and


^_ke fixed on the ordinary quantum meruit basis for the services actually
service


,American


Commissioner


has also


held in Decision


40, in


E!r proceeding (page 257)


The reasonableness of the proposed fee is also supported by the fact


basis


of payment


was


contingent


upon


securing


collecting


Sg that the agent's


services were rendered


with


the certainty of con-


Delay in receiving its fee and with


paid.
:i= '


the possibility that no fee might


*8*I


Airmerican
l^ 3h "' "


Commissioner accordingly


holds that on


facts


i in this case the claimant must be regarded as fully capable
eting its own interests in making the contingent fee agree-


ith the attorneys herein, and, consequently, that the fee fixed
." was reasonable within the meaning of that term as defined


iabove-quoted


extract


from


Report


Senate


Corn-


I ,, Finance recommending this legislation to the Senate.


U .


-, *" "




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


^384


- and the claimants and of the information pertilehnt
involved in this case on file in the records of this t
after due deliberation thereon. .
The American Commissioner decides and fixes as the
fee to be paid to the attorneys, Bainbridge Colby0,and
Brown, by each of the claimants, The Interocean Oil Coi
The United States Asphalt Refining Company, the fee fl&e
agreement with them, namely, thirty-three and ohe-thir
of the amount received by each of these claimants, respective .
the Treasury Department in payment of the awaxds rnT
their behalf, the said fees to be paid by the claimants a44
by the attorneys as just compensation for all services rend':
prosecution and collection of these claims as defined by ^
of the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928." '
Done at Washington, D. C., this 12th day of June, 190


CHANDLER P


Americain Coomirnion*r
Mixed Ctaime Conmidn
United States asi 6
0


111lilli ill lll llllll0ll I II IIH l111l
3 1262 08484 1849