October 1887: Justice Adds Up “On making the motion in this cause it appeared that the notice of the motion had been served only five days previously. Counsel for the motion maintained that three days’ notice was sufficient under the statute. The Vice Chancellor, however, said rule 224 is the one now in force and a motion of this kind requires an eight days’ notice.” (Reynolds v. Geraghty)
100 Years Ago
October 1912: An attorney in New York City engaged an expert witness and promised him 50 percent of whatever net fees the attorney should receive in the case. Charged with professional misconduct, the lawyer admitted the contract but, the court said in its opinion, was “entirely oblivious to the serious character” of the offense. He was suspended from practice for one year, and the Law Journal editors surmised that he escaped disbarment only because there was no disciplinary precedent.
