
    Jules Chopak, Respondent, v. William H. Walker, Appellant.
   In our opinion the trial court unduly limited appellant’s cross-examination with respect to the circumstances surrounding respondent’s retainer by appellant and as to the circumstances surrounding disciplinary action referred to in respondent’s testimony. Such evidence, if adduced, might have thrown additional light on the facts to be considered in appraising the value of respondent’s services. Rolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 781.]  