“Mr. ——­ would be the greatest lawyer in the world if he were not a scoundrel.  As it is, I brace myself to resist him every time he appears before me.”  One of the ablest Circuit Court judges of the Federal bench said almost precisely the same thing to me of the same man.

So you perceive it does not pay to be understood to be capable, or even great, in the wrong.  In time it means ruin; and therefore I think, on the whole, that it would be wise for you never to take a cause which, after you have a full statement from your client, you believe to be wrong.

Many of the most excellent men of our profession will dissent from this view.  Their argument is usually that of Lord Brougham, summarized above.  Also they will declare that a lawyer may be quite wrong in his first impression that his client has not the right of an impending controversy.  They will cite you instances where they have entered into the conduct of a case with much doubt in their hearts as to the rightfulness of their client’s position; but that this doubt became an affirmative certainty before they were half through with it—­they knew their client was right.

The answer to this is that any man can work himself into an enthusiastic belief in almost anything if he goes upon the theory that the thing is true, and gives all his energy and ability to proving its truthfulness to others and to himself.  This is peculiarly the case with the most sincere and genuine men.  I repeat, therefore, that upon a point so vital, and about which there are such sharp differences of opinion by equally good and wise men, it is better for you to incline to the stricter view of legal ethics.

So if you believe your client to be in the wrong, frankly tell him so; show him why; induce him to compromise and to settle, if he ought.  If he will not because he is obstinate, he will probably lose his case anyhow, and of course blame his lawyer for the loss.  So that if you do not have that case you have lost nothing.  On the other hand, you have gained.  The client will say:  “If I had followed his advice I should not have had the expense and humiliation of defeat.”

In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the honest client will respect you for your position.  If the client persists in his course because he is a scoundrel, then, doubly, you cannot afford to take his unjust case.  After a few years of such practise you will have acquired a moral influence with court, jury, and people which will be, even from a money point of view, the most valuable item in your equipment.  Public confidence is the young man’s best asset.  And you will be surprised to find how little you will lose, in the way of fees, by this course.

Of course there is a large class of cases in which the correct application of the law is very doubtful, with lines of decisions on both sides; as, for example, in cases of the distribution of funds of an insolvent corporation, constitutional questions, and the relative equities of conflicting interests.  These are fair examples of controversies where a lawyer may rightfully and righteously accept a retainer upon any of half-a-dozen sides.  But in the ordinary course of practise perhaps it is better to stick to Horace Mann rather than to Lord Brougham, and reject employment in a case you believe to be wrong.