Study manual

185 

---

186 
[8] Fell V. Brown. NISI PRIUS. 1791. 1 PEAKE 96. 
But in the exceptional case of a Barrister, no Tort is 
committed by his conducting his client's business without 
expert skill, (or even without ordinary care). 
THIS was an action against the defendant, a barrister, for 
unskilfully and negligently settling and signing a bill filed by 
the plaintiff in the Court of Chancery. The bill was referred by 
the Lord Chancellor to the Master, for scandal and impertinence; 
and the plaintiff was obliged to pay the costs of that 
reference. 
Erskine, for the plaintiff, said he should prove this to be 
crassa negligentia and not a mere error in judgment. If a 
counsel gives his opinion on any question, and happens to be 
mistaken, it cannot be said that he has been guilty of gross 
negligence. But if he is so inattentive to his duty as to 
blunder in the ordinary course of business, he makes himself 
liable to an action, (as would a physician
43
for such gross 
misconduct). 
43
. 
[EDITOR'S NOTE. See Jones v. Fay, (4 F. & F. 25); Seare v. Prentice, (8 East 348); and
PIPPIN v. SHEPPARD, infra, 637.] 

---

187 
LORD KENYON, C.J., was clearly of opinion that this action could 
not be supported.... The Court of Chancery will in such cases 
exert a summary power if it is found expedient so to do; but if 
that Court will order the counsel to pay the costs, it does not 
follow that an action can be maintained..... In a case where 
Lord Weymouth was a defendant, the Court thought the declaration 
full of unnecessary matter, and ordered it to be struck out with 
costs: but no one ever entertained an idea that an action could 
be maintained against the counsel who drew that declaration. 
His Lordship added that he believed this action was the first -
and, he hoped, the last - of the kind. 
On this opinion, the cause was given up and the plaintiff 
nonsuited. 
[EDITOR'S NOTE. But a solicitor is bound to show a reasonable 
degree of care and skill in any matter which he undertakes; a 
man widely experienced in conveyancing may find it prudent to 
decline a retainer in a divorce case.] 

---