Hill v Featherstonhaugh: 1831

Tindal CJ said: ‘If an attorney, through inadvertence or inexperience, – for I impute no improper motive to the plaintiff – incurs trouble which is useless to his client, he cannot make it a subject of remuneration . . Could a bricklayer, who had placed a wall in such a position as to be liable to fall, charge his employer for such an erection?’ Clearly not.’

Judges:

Tindal CJ

Citations:

(1831) 7 Bing 569

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHeywood v Wellers CA 1976
The claimant instructed solicitors in injunction proceedings which they conducted negligently. The solicitors had put the case in the hands of an incompetent junior clerk. She sued acting in person, and succeeded but now appealed the only limited . .
CitedHeywood v Wellers CA 1976
The claimant instructed solicitors in injunction proceedings which they conducted negligently. The solicitors had put the case in the hands of an incompetent junior clerk. She sued acting in person, and succeeded but now appealed the only limited . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Contract

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.223352