BOQeBS V. B. E. LEE MININO 00. 725 �kindness or favor may have arisen ont of the relation. Evans, Ag^ncy, *256, 290; Hunter v. Atkins, 3 M. & K 113. The sound policy upon which these raies are founded appears nowhere more forcibly than in transactions between attorneys. and counsel and their clients ; and there are no transactions which courts of equity will scrutinize with more jealousy than dealings between attorneys and their clients, especially where the latter are persons of inferior capacity and inexperieuced in business. Mills v. Mills, 26 Conn. 213. See, also, Neshit v. Lockman, 34 N". T. 167; HitoMngs v. Van Brunt, 38 N. T. 342; Bowning v. Major, 2 Dana, 228; Newman v. Payne, 2 Ves. 201. �No gratuity or gift to a legal adviser, beyond Ma fair professional demand, made during the time that he continues to conduct or manage the afCairs of the donop, will, as a rule, be permitted to stand, more especially if such gift or gratuity arises immediately out of the subject then under the adviser's con- duct or management, and the donor is at the time ignorant of the nature and value of the property so given. Evans, Agency, 290; Middleton v. Welles, 1 Cox, 112; Proofv. Mines, Cas. in Eq. (Talbot,) e. 115; Broion v. Kennedy, 33 Beav. 133 ; S. G. 4 De G., J. & S. 217. �A court of equity will not enforce in favor of a solicitor a secuirity taken from his client, pending a suit, for auything beyond the sum actually due the solicitor. Mot.t v. Harrington, 12 Vt. 199. See, also, Phillips v. Overton, 4 Ilayw. 291; Bowning v. Major, 2 Dana, 2Z%; Greenfteld's Estate, 14 Pa. St. 489; Leutt v. Sallee, 3 Port. 115; Rose v. Mynatt, 7 Yerg. ZO;Brown v. Bulk- ley, 14 N. J. Eq. 451. �So, whenever an attorney is called upon to render services to a client, whether to prepare a deed or will, the law will impute to him a knowledge of all the legal consequences likely to ensue, and requires that he should clearly point out to his client all those consequences from which a benefit may arise to him- self from the instrument so prepared ; and if he f ails to do so he will not be allowed to retain the beneflts. Evans, Agency, 295 ; Watt v. Qi'ove, 2 Sch. & Lef. 491 ; Bulkley v. Wilford, 2 C. & F. 102. �And, generally, in matters of contract between legal advisers and their cli- ents, the legal advisers may contract with their clients only when the rela- tion is dissolved, or the duties attaching to their position are satisfied. In Gibson v. Jeyes, 6 Ves. 266, in which the sale of an annuity by an attorney to his client was set aside, Lord Eldon said: "I do not mean to contradict the cases of trustees buying from their cestuis que trust, but the relation between the parties must be changed; that is, the confidence in the party, the trustee or attorney, must be withdrawn. * * * An attorney is not incapable of contracting with his client; a trustee also may deal with his cestuis que trust; but the relation must be in some way dissolved. or, if not, the parties must be put so mueh at arm's length that they agree to take the character of pur- chasei and vendor." �In the case of a contract of purchase and sale between an attorney and client or principal and agent, or of an agreement giving beneflts and advan- tages to the agent or attorney, proof of actual fraud on the part of the agent or attorney is not necessary in order to set aside the contract; the burden of establishing its perfect fairness, adequacy, and equity is upon the agent or attorney, and, in the absence of such proof, courts of equity treat the case as ��� �
