APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE, 
_. Before the Lord Chancellor.— 
Cholmondeley ( Earl of) v. Clinton 
(Lord ).—Whether anattorney or 
solicitor employed for one of the 
parties in a cause, and discharg- 
Ing himself from being so em- 
ployed, can legally become the so- 
licitor or attorney of the other 
party in the same cause? This 
question, so important not only 
to solicitors and attorneys, but to 
every branch of the profession of 
the law, and to the public, now 
remains for decision in the Court 
of Chancery. It was brought 
forward upon motion in the above 
cause, under the following state 
of facts, being al] that appeared 
to the Lord Chancellor necessary 
to be attended to for the decision 
of the general question. Messrs. 
Seymour and Montriou, or some 
such name, partners, were em- 
ployed as the solicitors for the de- 
fendant, Lord Clinton. In Sep- 
tember last, they agreed to dis- 
solve the partnership; and one of 
the conditions in the contract of 
dissolution was, that Mr. Sey- 
mour alone was to remain Lord 
Clinton’s solicitor, to which sti- 
ulation Lord Clinton assented. 
ord Cholmondeley afterwards 
appointed Mr. Montriou his soli- 
citor in this cause, and that. ap- 
pointment, after consulting seve- 
ral legal friends, Mr. M. thought 
himeelf justified in accepting. 
The motion on the part of Lord 
Clinton, or Mr. Seymour, or both, 
was that the Court should restrain 
Lord Cholmondeley from appoint- 
ing Mr. Montriou, and Mr. Mon- 
triou from accepting thé appoint- 
ment, oragting for Ld. Chdhnonde- 
Jey inthis ¢ause; and alao'that Mr. 
M. might, be restrained from com- 
municating to Lord Cholmondeley 
Vou. LVII. . 
305 
such material facts as had come 
to his knowledge, while he was 
solicitor for the defendant, Lord 
Clinton. It appeared that, while 
the partnership subsisted, Mr. 
Seymour alone had been the con- 
fidential solicitor of Lord Clinton ; 
and that Mr. Montriou had, ac- 
cording to his own affidavit, been 
concerned merely in the open ma- 
nagement of the cause, or public 
part of it, and that he knew no- 
thing of a secret nature to com- 
municate to Lord Cholmondeley ; 
and Sir A. Pigott stated, that Mr. 
M. was perfectly ready to deny, 
in the most positive terms, on 
oath, that he was the person who 
had given Lord Cholmondeley the 
anonymous information which had 
led him to institute this suit in 
behalf of himself and Mrs. Da- 
mer; and it was admitted on all 
hands, that for any thing that then 
appeared, Mr. M. might have ho- 
nestly thought he was justified 
in accepting the appointment, — 
though it was insisted that he was 
in possession of confidential in- 
formation, 
In the course of the argument 
in support of the motion, it was 
asked, speaking to the general 
question, whether it was proper 
to place thesuitors ofthe Court in 
such a situation that their solici- 
tors might, in the middle of a 
cause, discharge themselves, and 
take the opposite side in the same 
cause, in opposition to the gene- 
ral principles that solicitors were 
bound to keep the secrets of their 
clients? The Court, dealing with 
its own officers, had clearly juris- 
diction to order in terms of the 
motion ; and even if the right 
were out of the question, 3 sense 
of propriety ought to prevent 
