Legal Opinion · Dissent

Smith v. Kneisley

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 13, 1936No. 25563. En BancPublished

1Dissent

I dissent. I do not agree that the evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial court. Nor am I in accord with the views expressed in the original opinion in this case (184 Wn. 26, 49 P.2d 916). Until suspended or disbarred by this court, an attorney at law of this state is morally and legally entitled to payment for legal services rendered to his client. The services performed were of a legal nature, the attorney at law had not been suspended or disbarred, the amount awarded is not excessive; therefore, I can conceive of no reason in law or morals on which to deny recovery. It…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Smith v. KneisleyWashington Supreme Court · 1935
  2. In Re the Estate of PerryWashington Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Houda v. McDonaldWashington Supreme Court · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API