Hightower v. Detroit Edison Co.

247 NW 97, 1993

CANON 1.03

“A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding
or delay any man’s cause.”

247 N.W. 97 (Mich. 1933) 262 Mich. 1

HIGHTOWER v. DETROIT EDISON CO.
Appeal of TOLONEN. Motion No. 3
Supreme Court of Michigan
March 1, 1933

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Neil E. Reid, Judge.

Action by Minnie Lee Clark Hightower, an infant, by Mable Powell, next friend, against the
Detroit Edison Company. From a judgment disallowing an attorney's fee to Jacob A. Tolonen, he
appeals.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Plaintiff, Minnie Lee Clark Hightower, a 7-year-old infant, was injured by the truck of
the defendant Detroit Edison Company. Few days after the injury, J.C. Donohue through its
agent, Bailey, solicited the great aunt of plaintiff, MRS. MABLE POWELL to place the accident
claim with Donohue. Bailey said that Donohue was a lawyer and admitted to practice. All the
legal papers were prepared by Donohue and documents with undisclosed contents were signed
by MRS. MABLE POWELL.

Donohue’s practices and business character were that of a middleman between client and
the attorney. Their usual routine was to engage lawyers like Attorney Roscoe C. Griffith and
Attorney Jacob A. Tolonen on services like settlement, recovery, or judgment and trying their
client’s case. Griffith commences the cases but prepares substitution of attorney so that other
lawyers like Atty. Tolonen will pursue and try the case in Court. Donohue paid the services of
these lawyers out of the payment of settlement or judgments of the cases.

During the trial proceeding of the Hightower vs. Detroit case, the Circuit Court learned
from Mrs. Powell that Donohue solicited her to file the personal injury claim. The Court notified
the Detroit Bar Association of Mrs. Powell’s claim of solicitation, and a representative appeared
as amicus curiae. Nevertheless, the consent judgment was entered. Mrs. Powell filed a motion of
substitution of an attorney, prayed that the Court determine the amount due to Attorney Griffith
and Attorney Tolonen and the lein of either on the cause of action or judgment, and objected to
allowance of lein or fees to either. The Court made the order of substituting DeLand as attorney
for plaintiff, subject to determination of fees due to Attorney Griffith and Attorney Tolonen.
After the filing of answers, supplemental motion, and affidavits and taking of testimony, the
Court denied any fees to Attorney Griffith and Tolonen on the ground that the claim for which
they filed with the court had been solicited in violation of statute, and that Donohue was illegally
practicing law. The offense is solicitation for the forbidden purpose. Attorney Tolonen appealed
the disallowance of his fee.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Attorney Jacob A. Tolonen is entitled to Attorney’s fee for his services to
the plaintiff for the reason that he has no knowledge of the illegal transaction of Donohue and
that he performed services in good faith.

HELD:

No. The Supreme Court of Michigan held that Appellant, Attorney Jacob Tolonen is
not entitled to fees because he was a party to the illegal practice of the law by Donohue.

The Court ruled that If the middleman acts under a void contract, the attorney can acquire
no rights thereunder, hence, lein on judgment was properly denied because claimed under an
illegal contract. Appellant’s representation of Donohue was not only a breach of professional
ethics and standards, of duty to the client and in aid of violation of law, but was a fraud on the
court, going directly to the integrity of relationship between bench and bar and to the heart of the
orderly administration of justice.

Donohue violated the Michigan statute, Act. No. 328, Public Acts 1931, Chapter 30,
Section 410, that states, “Any person, firm, co-partnership, association, or corporation or any of
the officers, agents, servants, or employees of any such person, firm, co-partnership, association,
or corporation, who shall directly or indirectly, individually or by agent, servant, or employee,
solicit any person injured as the result of an accident, his administrator, executor, heirs, or
assigns, for the purpose of representing such person in making claim for damages or prosecuting
any action or causes of action arising out of any personal injury claim against any other person,
firm or corporation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and any contract entered into as a result of
such solicitation shall be void: Provided, however, That nothing herein shall affect an unsolicited
contract entered into by any person, firm or corporation with an attorney duly admitted to
practice law in this State.”

The purpose of the said act is to discourage the practice commonly known as
“ambulance chasing.” This practice has developed recognized evils such as, (1) fomenting
litigation with resultant burdens on the courts and public purse, (2) subornation of perjury, (3)
mulcting of innocent persons by judgments, upon manufactured causes of action and perjured
testimony, and by settlements to buy peace, and (4) defrauding of injured persons having proper
causes of action, but ignorant of legal rights and court procedure, by means of contracts which
retain exorbitant percentages of recovery and illegal charges for court costs and expenses and by
settlements made for quick return of fees and against the just rights of the injured persons.