
    Philip B. Thompson v. The Knickerbocker Ice Company.
    
      (New York Court of Common Pleas, Special Term,
    
    
      Filed June 15, 1888.)
    
    Bill of particulars—Of lawyers’ claims for services—What degree-OF PARTICULARITY DEMANDED.
    An action was brought by an attorney for compensation for services and the defendant moved for a bill of particulars of the plaintiff’s claim. Held, that it was sufficient if the plaintiff’s bill of particulars showed the-number of briefs prepared without stating the time spent in preparation, and the number of appearances and interviews in the defendant’s behalf without stating the exact length of each.
    Philip B. Thompson, a lawyer of Washington, D. C., sued the Knickerbocker Ice Company, claiming $10,000 for services in the settlement of a dispute between the company and the United States government in reference to the company’s liability to taxation on certain notes or tickets alleged by the government to have been issued for circulation. From 1876 to 1887, $1,681,782.76 of these tickets were issued, on which a ten per cent tax was claimed, or $168,178. The solicitor general finally gave an opinion relieving the company from payment of any portion of these taxes, overruling the commissioner of internal revenue. The company moved in the court of common pleas for a bill of particulars of plaintiff’s claim. Mr. Thompson made affidavit in opposition, stating in general terms what he had done.
   Vah Hoesen, J.

It is not, nor should it be, the practice to require a plaintiff, who claims a gross sum for a lump job, to specify in detail the value in money of every single step he takes in the course of his labors. Mor do I think it proper to require a lawyer, who has prepared a brief, to state what time he took in preparing it. The value of the brief depends upon the ability it displays. If the subject be inherently difficult, and if research be proved by the learning collected in the brief, the compensation of the lawyer may well be large, though his familiarity with the class of questions discussed may have enabled him to prepare the argument without the labor that one exploring a new field would have found imperatively necessary. The time spent in the closet by the lawyer is, in my opinion, a matter of no consequence to his client. The time spent in attendance upon a court, or in attendance upon the authorities to whom the argument is to be addressed, may, with propriety, be called for by the client. But it cannot be necessary that the time should be accurately measuréd in minutes. It appears to me that the statements of the plaintiff’s affidavit are as full as can reasonably be expected. It appears that he filed three briefs with the commissioner of internal revenue; that he presented to that official a written petition; that he saw him several times and made oral statements to him; that he appeared before the deputy commissioner; and, also, on two or three occasions, before the solicitor of the internal revenue and made oral arguments; that he looked after the transmission of the case to the attorney general; that he saw the solicitor general several times, and filed a printed brief with that officer. I do not think that the defendant has a right to expect the plaintiff to state with exactness the very time occupied in every one of these interviews with these officials.

I shall order the plaintiff to file a bill of particulars, but I shall hold that the plaintiff’s affidavit shall stand as the bill of particulars. _  