Secunda Secundae · Justice

Of Injustice in Judgment on the Part of Counsel

II-II, q. 71 · Four articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de iniustitia quae fit in iudicio ex parte advocatorum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum advocatus teneatur praestare patrocinium causae pauperum. Secundo, utrum aliquis debeat arceri ab officio advocati. Tertio, utrum advocatus peccet iniustam causam defendendo. Quarto, utrum peccet pecuniam accipiendo pro suo patrocinio.

We must now consider the injustice which takes place in judgment on the part of counsel, and under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether an advocate is bound to defend the suits of the poor?

(2) Whether certain persons should be prohibited from exercising the office of advocate?

(3) Whether an advocate sins by defending an unjust cause?

(4) Whether he sins if he accept a fee for defending a suit?

  1. 1 Whether an Advocate Is Bound to Defend the Suits of the Poor?
  2. 2 Whether It Is Fitting That the Law Should Debar Certain Persons from the Office of Advocate?
  3. 3 Whether an Advocate Sins by Defending an Unjust Cause?
  4. 4 Whether It Is Lawful for an Advocate to Take a Fee for Pleading?

Articulus I

Whether an Advocate Is Bound to Defend the Suits of the Poor?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod advocatus teneatur patrocinium praestare causae pauperum. Dicitur enim Exod. XXIII, si videris asinum odientis te iacere sub onere, non pertransibis, sed sublevabis cum eo. Sed non minus periculum imminet pauperi si eius causa contra iustitiam opprimatur, quam si eius asinus iaceat sub onere. Ergo advocatus tenetur praestare patrocinium causae pauperum.

It would seem that an advocate is bound to defend the suits of the poor. For it is written (Ex. 23:5): "If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lie underneath his burden, thou shalt not pass by, but shall lift him up with him." Now no less a danger threatens the poor man whose suit is being unjustly prejudiced, than if his ass were to lie underneath its burden. Therefore an advocate is bound to defend the suits of the poor.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, in quadam homilia, habens intellectum curet omnino ne taceat; habens rerum affluentiam a misericordia non torpescat; habens artem qua regitur, usum illius cum proximo partiatur; habens loquendi locum apud divitem, pro pauperibus intercedat, talenti enim nomine cuilibet reputabitur quod vel minimum accepit. Sed talentum commissum non abscondere, sed fideliter dispensare quilibet tenetur, quod patet ex poena servi abscondentis talentum, Matth. XXV. Ergo advocatus tenetur pro pauperibus loqui.

Further, Gregory says in a homily (ix in Evang.): "Let him that hath understanding beware lest he withhold his knowledge; let him that hath abundance of wealth watch lest he slacken his merciful bounty; let him who is a servant to art share his skill with his neighbor; let him who has an opportunity of speaking with the wealthy plead the cause of the poor: for the slightest gift you have received will be reputed a talent." Now every man is bound, not to hide but faithfully to dispense the talent committed to him; as evidenced by the punishment inflicted on the servant who hid his talent (Matt. 25:30). Therefore an advocate is bound to plead for the poor.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, praeceptum de misericordiae operibus adimplendis, cum sit affirmativum, obligat pro loco et tempore, quod est maxime in necessitate. Sed tempus necessitatis videtur esse quando alicuius pauperis causa opprimitur. Ergo in tali casu videtur quod advocatus teneatur pauperibus patrocinium praestare.

Further, the precept about performing works of mercy, being affirmative, is binding according to time and place, and this is chiefly in cases of need. Now it seems to be a case of need when the suit of a poor man is being prejudiced. Therefore it seems that in such a case an advocate is bound to defend the poor man's suit.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra, non minor necessitas est indigentis cibo quam indigentis advocato. Sed ille qui habet potestatem cibandi non semper tenetur pauperem cibare. Ergo nec advocatus semper tenetur causae pauperum patrocinium praestare.

On the contrary, He that lacks food is no less in need than he that lacks an advocate. Yet he that is able to give food is not always bound to feed the needy. Therefore neither is an advocate always bound to defend the suits of the poor.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod cum praestare patrocinium causae pauperum ad opus misericordiae pertineat, idem est hic dicendum quod et supra de aliis misericordiae operibus dictum est. Nullus enim sufficit omnibus indigentibus misericordiae opus impendere. Et ideo sicut Augustinus dicit, in I de Doct. Christ., cum omnibus prodesse non possis, his potissime consulendum est qui pro locorum et temporum vel quarumlibet rerum opportunitatibus, constrictius tibi, quasi quadam sorte, iunguntur. Dicit, pro locorum opportunitatibus, quia non tenetur homo per mundum quaerere indigentes quibus subveniat, sed sufficit si eis qui sibi occurrunt misericordiae opus impendat. Unde dicitur Exod. XXIII, si occurreris bovi inimici tui aut asino erranti, reduc ad eum. Addit autem, et temporum, quia non tenetur homo futurae necessitati alterius providere, sed sufficit si praesenti necessitati succurrat. Unde dicitur I Ioan. III, qui viderit fratrem suum necessitatem patientem, et clauserit viscera sua ab eo, et cetera. Subdit autem, vel quarumlibet rerum, quia homo sibi coniunctis quacumque necessitudine maxime debet curam impendere; secundum illud I ad Tim. V, si quis suorum, et maxime domesticorum curam non habet, fidem negavit. Quibus tamen concurrentibus, considerandum restat utrum aliquis tantam necessitatem patiatur quod non in promptu appareat quomodo ei possit aliter subveniri. Et in tali casu tenetur ei opus misericordiae impendere. Si autem in promptu appareat quomodo ei aliter subveniri possit, vel per seipsum vel per aliam personam magis coniunctam aut maiorem facultatem habentem, non tenetur ex necessitate indigenti subvenire, ita quod non faciendo peccet, quamvis, si subvenerit absque tali necessitate, laudabiliter faciat. Unde advocatus non tenetur semper causae pauperum patrocinium praestare, sed solum concurrentibus conditionibus praedictis. Alioquin oporteret eum omnia alia negotia praetermittere, et solis causis pauperum iuvandis intendere. Et idem dicendum est de medico, quantum ad curationem pauperum.

I answer that, Since defense of the poor man's suit belongs to the works of mercy, the answer to this inquiry is the same as the one given above with regard to the other works of mercy (Q. 32, AA. 5, 9). Now no man is sufficient to bestow a work of mercy on all those who need it. Wherefore, as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 28), "since one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those chiefly who by reason of place, time, or any other circumstance, by a kind of chance are more closely united to us." He says "by reason of place," because one is not bound to search throughout the world for the needy that one may succor them; and it suffices to do works of mercy to those one meets with. Hence it is written (Ex. 23:4): "If thou meet thy enemy's ass going astray, bring it back to him." He says also "by reason of time," because one is not bound to provide for the future needs of others, and it suffices to succor present needs. Hence it is written (1 John 3:17): "He that . . . shall see his brother in need, and shall put up his bowels from him, how doth the charity of God abide in him?" Lastly he says, "or any other circumstance," because one ought to show kindness to those especially who are by any tie whatever united to us, according to 1 Tim. 5:8, "If any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel."

It may happen however that these circumstances concur, and then we have to consider whether this particular man stands in such a need that it is not easy to see how he can be succored otherwise, and then one is bound to bestow the work of mercy on him. If, however, it is easy to see how he can be otherwise succored, either by himself, or by some other person still more closely united to him, or in a better position to help him, one is not bound so strictly to help the one in need that it would be a sin not to do so: although it would be praiseworthy to do so where one is not bound to. Therefore an advocate is not always bound to defend the suits of the poor, but only when the aforesaid circumstances concur, else he would have to put aside all other business, and occupy himself entirely in defending the suits of poor people. The same applies to a physician with regard to attendance on the sick.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quando asinus iacet sub onere, non potest ei aliter subveniri in casu isto nisi per advenientes subveniatur, et ideo tenentur iuvare. Non autem tenerentur si posset aliunde remedium afferri.

So long as the ass lies under the burden, there is no means of help in this case, unless those who are passing along come to the man's aid, and therefore they are bound to help. But they would not be so bound if help were possible from another quarter.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod homo talentum sibi creditum tenetur utiliter dispensare, servata opportunitate locorum et temporum et aliarum rerum, ut dictum est.

A man is bound to make good use of the talent bestowed on him, according to the opportunities afforded by time, place, and other circumstances, as stated above.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod non quaelibet necessitas causat debitum subveniendi, sed solum illa quae est dicta.

Not every need is such that it is one's duty to remedy it, but only such as we have stated above.

Articulus II

Whether It Is Fitting That the Law Should Debar Certain Persons from the Office of Advocate?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter aliqui secundum iura arceantur ab officio advocandi. Ab operibus enim misericordiae nullus debet arceri. Sed patrocinium praestare in causis ad opera misericordiae pertinet, ut dictum est. Ergo nullus debet ab hoc officio arceri.

It would seem unfitting for the law to debar certain persons from the office of advocate. For no man should be debarred from doing works of mercy. Now it belongs to the works of mercy to defend a man's suit, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore no man should be debarred from this office.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, contrariarum causarum non videtur esse idem effectus. Sed esse deditum rebus divinis, et esse deditum peccatis, est contrarium. Inconvenienter igitur excluduntur ab officio advocati quidam propter religionem, ut monachi et clerici; quidam autem propter culpam, ut infames et haeretici.

Further, contrary causes have not, seemingly, the same effect. Now to be busy with Divine things and to be busy about sin are contrary to one another. Therefore it is unfitting that some should be debarred from the office of advocate, on account of religion, as monks and clerics, while others are debarred on account of sin, as persons of ill-repute and heretics.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, homo debet diligere proximum sicut seipsum. Sed ad effectum dilectionis pertinet quod aliquis advocatus causae alicuius patrocinetur. Inconvenienter ergo aliqui quibus conceditur pro seipsis auctoritas advocationis, prohibentur patrocinari causis aliorum.

Further, a man should love his neighbor as himself. Now it is a duty of love for an advocate to plead a person's cause. Therefore it is unfitting that certain persons should be debarred from pleading the cause of others, while they are allowed to advocate their own cause.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod III, qu. VII, multae personae arcentur ab officio postulandi.

On the contrary, According to Decret. III, qu. vii, can. Infames, many persons are debarred from the office of advocate.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod aliquis impeditur ab aliquo actu duplici ratione, uno modo, propter impotentiam; alio modo, propter indecentiam. Sed impotentia simpliciter excludit aliquem ab actu, indecentia autem non excludit omnino, quia necessitas indecentiam tollere potest. Sic igitur ab officio advocatorum prohibentur quidam propter impotentiam, eo quod deficiunt sensu, vel interiori, sicut furiosi et impuberes; vel exteriori, sicut surdi et muti. Est enim necessaria advocato et interior peritia, qua possit convenienter iustitiam assumptae causae ostendere, et iterum loquela cum auditu, ut possit et pronuntiare et audire quod ei dicitur. Unde qui in his defectum patiuntur omnino prohibentur ne sint advocati, nec pro se nec pro aliis. Decentia autem huius officii exercendi tollitur dupliciter. Uno modo, ex hoc quod aliquis est rebus maioribus obligatus. Unde monachos et presbyteros non decet in quacumque causa advocatos esse, neque clericos in iudicio saeculari, quia huiusmodi personae sunt rebus divinis adstrictae. Alio modo, propter personae defectum, vel corporalem, ut patet de caecis, qui convenienter iudici adstare non possent; vel spiritualem, non enim decet ut alterius iustitiae patronus existat qui in seipso iustitiam contempsit. Et ideo infames, infideles et damnati de gravibus criminibus non decenter sunt advocati. Tamen huiusmodi indecentiae necessitas praefertur. Et propter hoc huiusmodi personae possunt pro seipsis, vel pro personis sibi coniunctis, uti officio advocati. Unde et clerici pro Ecclesiis suis possunt esse advocati, et monachi pro causa monasterii sui, si abbas praeceperit.

I answer that, In two ways a person is debarred from performing a certain act: first because it is impossible to him, secondly because it is unbecoming to him: but, whereas the man to whom a certain act is impossible, is absolutely debarred from performing it, he to whom an act is unbecoming is not debarred altogether, since necessity may do away with its unbecomingness. Accordingly some are debarred from the office of advocate because it is impossible to them through lack of sense—either interior, as in the case of madmen and minors—or exterior, as in the case of the deaf and dumb. For an advocate needs to have both interior skill so that he may be able to prove the justice of the cause he defends, and also speech and hearing, that he may speak and hear what is said to him. Consequently those who are defective in these points, are altogether debarred from being advocates either in their own or in another's cause. The becomingness of exercising this office is removed in two ways. First, through a man being engaged in higher things. Wherefore it is unfitting that monks or priests should be advocates in any cause whatever, or that clerics should plead in a secular court, because such persons are engaged in Divine things. Secondly, on account of some personal defect, either of body (for instance a blind man whose attendance in a court of justice would be unbecoming) or of soul, for it ill becomes one who has disdained to be just himself, to plead for the justice of another. Wherefore it is unbecoming that persons of ill repute, unbelievers, and those who have been convicted of grievous crimes should be advocates. Nevertheless this unbecomingness is outweighed by necessity: and for this reason such persons can plead either their own cause or that of persons closely connected with them. Moreover, clerics can be advocates in the cause of their own church, and monks in the cause of their own monastery, if the abbot direct them to do so.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ab operibus misericordiae interdum aliqui propter impotentiam, interdum etiam propter indecentiam impediuntur. Non enim omnia opera misericordiae omnes decent, sicut stultos non decet consilium dare, neque ignorantes docere.

Certain persons are sometimes debarred by unbecomingness, and others by inability from performing works of mercy: for not all the works of mercy are becoming to all persons: thus it ill becomes a fool to give counsel, or the ignorant to teach.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut virtus corrumpitur per superabundantiam et defectum, ita aliquis fit indecens et per maius et per minus. Et propter hoc quidam arcentur a patrocinio praestando in causis quia sunt maiores tali officio, sicut religiosi et clerici, quidam vero quia sunt minores quam ut eis hoc officium competat, sicut infames et infideles.

Just as virtue is destroyed by "too much" and "too little," so does a person become incompetent by "more" and "less." For this reason some, like religious and clerics, are debarred from pleading in causes, because they are above such an office; and others because they are less than competent to exercise it, such as persons of ill-repute and unbelievers.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod non ita imminet homini necessitas patrocinari causis aliorum sicut propriis, quia alii possunt sibi aliter subvenire. Unde non est similis ratio.

The necessity of pleading the causes of others is not so pressing as the necessity of pleading one's own cause, because others are able to help themselves otherwise: hence the comparison fails.

Articulus III

Whether an Advocate Sins by Defending an Unjust Cause?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod advocatus non peccet si iniustam causam defendat. Sicut enim ostenditur peritia medici si infirmitatem desperatam sanet, ita etiam ostenditur peritia advocati si etiam iniustam causam defendere possit. Sed medicus laudatur si infirmitatem desperatam sanet. Ergo etiam advocatus non peccat, sed magis laudandus est, si iniustam causam defendat.

It would seem that an advocate does not sin by defending an unjust cause. For just as a physician proves his skill by healing a desperate disease, so does an advocate prove his skill, if he can defend an unjust cause. Now a physician is praised if he heals a desperate malady. Therefore an advocate also commits no sin, but ought to be praised, if he defends an unjust cause.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, a quolibet peccato licet desistere. Sed advocatus punitur si causam suam prodiderit, ut habetur II, qu. III. Ergo advocatus non peccat iniustam causam defendendo, si eam defendendam susceperit.

Further, it is always lawful to desist from committing a sin. Yet an advocate is punished if he throws up his brief (Decret. II, qu. iii, can. Si quem poenit.). Therefore an advocate does not sin by defending an unjust cause, when once he has undertaken its defense.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, maius videtur esse peccatum si iniustitia utatur ad iustam causam defendendam, puta producendo falsos testes vel allegando falsas leges, quam iniustam causam defendendo, quia hoc est peccatum in forma, illud in materia. Sed videtur advocato licere talibus astutiis uti, sicut militi licet ex insidiis pugnare. Ergo videtur quod advocatus non peccat si iniustam causam defendat.

Further, it would seem to be a greater sin for an advocate to use unjust means in defense of a just cause (e.g. by producing false witnesses, or alleging false laws), than to defend an unjust cause, since the former is a sin against the form, the latter against the matter of justice. Yet it is seemingly lawful for an advocate to make use of such underhand means, even as it is lawful for a soldier to lay ambushes in a battle. Therefore it would seem that an advocate does not sin by defending an unjust cause.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur II Paralip. XIX, impio praebes auxilium, et idcirco iram domini merebaris. Sed advocatus defendens causam iniustam impio praebet auxilium. Ergo, peccando, iram domini meretur.

On the contrary, It is said (2 Paralip. 19:2): "Thou helpest the ungodly . . . and therefore thou didst deserve . . . the wrath of the Lord." Now an advocate by defending an unjust cause, helps the ungodly. Therefore he sins and deserves the wrath of the Lord.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod illicitum est alicui cooperari ad malum faciendum sive consulendo, sive adiuvando, sive qualitercumque consentiendo, quia consilians et coadiuvans quodammodo est faciens; et apostolus dicit, ad Rom. I, quod digni sunt morte non solum qui faciunt peccatum, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus. Unde et supra dictum est quod omnes tales ad restitutionem tenentur. Manifestum est autem quod advocatus et auxilium et consilium praestat ei cuius causae patrocinatur. Unde si scienter iniustam causam defendit, absque dubio graviter peccat; et ad restitutionem tenetur eius damni quod contra iustitiam per eius auxilium altera pars incurrit. Si autem ignoranter iniustam causam defendit, putans esse iustam, excusatur, secundum modum quo ignorantia excusare potest.

I answer that, It is unlawful to cooperate in an evil deed, by counseling, helping, or in any way consenting, because to counsel or assist an action is, in a way, to do it, and the Apostle says (Rom. 1:32) that "they . . . are worthy of death, not only they that do" a sin, "but they also that consent to them that do" it. Hence it was stated above (Q. 62, A. 7), that all such are bound to restitution. Now it is evident that an advocate provides both assistance and counsel to the party for whom he pleads. Wherefore, if knowingly he defends an unjust cause, without doubt he sins grievously, and is bound to restitution of the loss unjustly incurred by the other party by reason of the assistance he has provided. If, however, he defends an unjust cause unknowingly, thinking it just, he is to be excused according to the measure in which ignorance is excusable.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod medicus accipiens in cura infirmitatem desperatam nulli facit iniuriam. Advocatus autem suscipiens causam iniustam iniuste laedit eum contra quem patrocinium praestat. Et ideo non est similis ratio. Quamvis enim laudabilis videatur quantum ad peritiam artis, tamen peccat quantum ad iniustitiam voluntatis, qua abutitur arte ad malum.

The physician injures no man by undertaking to heal a desperate malady, whereas the advocate who accepts service in an unjust cause, unjustly injures the party against whom he pleads unjustly. Hence the comparison fails. For though he may seem to deserve praise for showing skill in his art, nevertheless he sins by reason of injustice in his will, since he abuses his art for an evil end.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod advocatus, si in principio credidit causam iustam esse et postea in processu appareat eam esse iniustam, non debet eam prodere, ut scilicet aliam partem iuvet, vel secreta suae causae alteri parti revelet. Potest tamen et debet causam deserere; vel eum cuius causam agit ad cedendum inducere, sive ad componendum, sine adversarii damno.

If an advocate believes from the outset that the cause is just, and discovers afterwards while the case is proceeding that it is unjust, he ought not to throw up his brief in such a way as to help the other side, or so as to reveal the secrets of his client to the other party. But he can and must give up the case, or induce his client to give way, or make some compromise without prejudice to the opposing party.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, militi vel duci exercitus licet in bello iusto ex insidiis agere ea quae facere debet prudenter occultando, non autem falsitatem fraudulenter faciendo, quia etiam hosti fidem servare oportet, sicut Tullius dicit, in III de Offic. Unde et advocato defendenti causam iustam licet prudenter occultare ea quibus impediri posset processus eius, non autem licet ei aliqua falsitate uti.

As stated above (Q. 40, A. 3), it is lawful for a soldier, or a general to lay ambushes in a just war, by prudently concealing what he has a mind to do, but not by means of fraudulent falsehoods, since we should keep faith even with a foe, as Tully says (De offic. iii, 29). Hence it is lawful for an advocate, in defending his case, prudently to conceal whatever might hinder its happy issue, but it is unlawful for him to employ any kind of falsehood.

Articulus IV

Whether It Is Lawful for an Advocate to Take a Fee for Pleading?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod advocato non liceat pro suo patrocinio pecuniam accipere. Opera enim misericordiae non sunt intuitu humanae remunerationis facienda, secundum illud Luc. XIV, cum facis prandium aut cenam, noli vocare amicos tuos neque vicinos divites, ne forte et ipsi te reinvitent, et fiat tibi retributio. Sed praestare patrocinium causae alicuius pertinet ad opera misericordiae, ut dictum est. Ergo non licet advocato accipere retributionem pecuniae pro patrocinio praestito.

It would seem unlawful for an advocate to take a fee for pleading. Works of mercy should not be done with a view to human remuneration, according to Luke 14:12, "When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends . . . nor thy neighbors who are rich: lest perhaps they also invite thee again, and a recompense be made to thee." Now it is a work of mercy to plead another's cause, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore it is not lawful for an advocate to take payment in money for pleading.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, spirituale non est pro temporali commutandum. Sed patrocinium praestitum videtur esse quiddam spirituale, cum sit usus scientiae iuris. Ergo non licet advocato pro patrocinio praestito pecuniam accipere.

Further, spiritual things are not to be bartered with temporal things. But pleading a person's cause seems to be a spiritual good since it consists in using one's knowledge of law. Therefore it is not lawful for an advocate to take a fee for pleading.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sicut ad iudicium concurrit persona advocati, ita etiam persona iudicis et persona testis. Sed secundum Augustinum, ad Macedonium, non debet iudex vendere iustum iudicium, nec testis verum testimonium. Ergo nec advocatus poterit vendere iustum patrocinium.

Further, just as the person of the advocate concurs towards the pronouncement of the verdict, so do the persons of the judge and of the witness. Now, according to Augustine (Ep. cliii ad Macedon.), "the judge should not sell a just sentence, nor the witness true evidence." Therefore neither can an advocate sell a just pleading.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit ibidem, quod advocatus licite vendit iustum patrocinium, et iurisperitus verum consilium.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. cliii ad Macedon.) that "an advocate may lawfully sell his pleading, and a lawyer his advice."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod ea quae quis non tenetur alteri exhibere, iuste potest pro eorum exhibitione recompensationem accipere. Manifestum est autem quod advocatus non semper tenetur patrocinium praestare aut consilium dare causis aliorum. Et ideo si vendat suum patrocinium sive consilium, non agit contra iustitiam. Et eadem ratio est de medico opem ferente ad sanandum, et de omnibus aliis huiusmodi personis, dum tamen moderate accipiant, considerata conditione personarum et negotiorum et laboris, et consuetudine patriae. Si autem per improbitatem aliquid immoderate extorqueat, peccat contra iustitiam. Unde Augustinus dicit, ad Macedonium, quod ab his extorta per immoderatam improbitatem repeti solent, data per tolerabilem consuetudinem non solent.

I answer that, A man may justly receive payment for granting what he is not bound to grant. Now it is evident that an advocate is not always bound to consent to plead, or to give advice in other people's causes. Wherefore, if he sell his pleading or advice, he does not act against justice. The same applies to the physician who attends on a sick person to heal him, and to all like persons; provided, however, they take a moderate fee, with due consideration for persons, for the matter in hand, for the labor entailed, and for the custom of the country. If, however, they wickedly extort an immoderate fee, they sin against justice. Hence Augustine says (Ep. cliii ad Macedon.) that "it is customary to demand from them restitution of what they have extorted by a wicked excess, but not what has been given to them in accordance with a commendable custom."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non semper quae homo potest misericorditer facere, tenetur facere gratis, alioquin nulli liceret aliquam rem vendere, quia quamlibet rem potest homo misericorditer impendere. Sed quando eam misericorditer impendit, non humanam, sed divinam remunerationem quaerere debet. Et similiter advocatus, quando causae pauperum misericorditer patrocinatur, non debet intendere remunerationem humanam, sed divinam, non tamen semper tenetur gratis patrocinium impendere.

Man is not bound to do gratuitously whatever he can do from motives of mercy: else no man could lawfully sell anything, since anything may be given from motives of mercy. But when a man does give a thing out of mercy, he should seek, not a human, but a Divine reward. In like manner an advocate, when he mercifully pleads the cause of a poor man, should have in view not a human but a Divine meed; and yet he is not always bound to give his services gratuitously.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod etsi scientia iuris sit quiddam spirituale, tamen usus eius fit opere corporali. Et ideo pro eius recompensatione licet pecuniam accipere, alioquin nulli artifici liceret de arte sua lucrari.

Though knowledge of law is something spiritual, the use of that knowledge is accomplished by the work of the body: hence it is lawful to take money in payment of that use, else no craftsman would be allowed to make profit by his art.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod iudex et testis communes sunt utrique parti, quia iudex tenetur iustam sententiam dare, et testis tenetur verum testimonium dicere; iustitia autem et veritas non declinant in unam partem magis quam in aliam. Et ideo iudicibus de publico sunt stipendia laboris statuta; et testes accipiunt, non quasi pretium testimonii, sed quasi stipendium laboris, expensas vel ab utraque parte, vel ab ea a qua inducuntur, quia nemo militat stipendiis suis unquam, ut dicitur I ad Cor. IX. Sed advocatus alteram partem tantum defendit. Et ideo licite potest pretium accipere a parte quam adiuvat.

The judge and witnesses are common to either party, since the judge is bound to pronounce a just verdict, and the witness to give true evidence. Now justice and truth do not incline to one side rather than to the other: and consequently judges receive out of the public funds a fixed pay for their labor; and witnesses receive their expenses (not as payment for giving evidence, but as a fee for their labor) either from both parties or from the party by whom they are adduced, because no man "serveth as a soldier at any time at his own charge [Vulg.: 'Who serveth as a soldier,']" (1 Cor. 9:7). On the other hand an advocate defends one party only, and so he may lawfully accept fee from the party he assists.

Showing Thomas's answers only.