Swynfen will case

The Swynfen (or Swinfen) will case was a series of English trials over the will of Samuel Swynfen that ran from 1856 to 1864 and raised important question of ethics in the legal profession.

The case

Samuel Swynfen Swinfen Hall, Staffordshire died in 1854 and, in his will, left £60,000 (£4.2 million at 2003 prices cite journal | title=Consumer Price Inflation since 1750 | author=O‘Donoghue, J. "et al." | journal=Economic Trends | volume=604 | year=2004 | pages=38–46, March | url=http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/article.asp?ID=726 ] ) to his widowed daughter-in-law Patience Swynfen. However, Samuel possessed another large estate that was not mentioned in his will. Patience claimed that too.Kingston (1923)]

However, Frederick Hay Swynfen, Samuel's nephew, also claimed the estate. Litigation followed with eminent barristers Sir Frederick Thesiger representing Patience, and Sir Alexander Cockburn, the nephew. However, contrary to Patience's instructions, Thesiger negotiated a settlement with Cockburn and put it to the judge. Patience was furious and succeeded in having the agreement set aside and a new trial listed. Dismissing Thesiger, Patience instructed a young and little known barrister named Charles Rann Kennedy, promising to pay him £20,000 (£1.4 million at 2003 prices) if he succeeded in her cause.

No doubt spured by the incentive, and the fact that he was engaged in a sexual relationship with Patience, Kennedy won the estate. However, she went on to marry a Charles Broun and then to declare that she had no intention of paying Kennedy. Kennedy sued and won, but his claim was overturned on appeal on the grounds that, what was effectively a contingency fee agreement, offended ancient prohibitions on champerty and maintenance. [Pue (1990) "pp"103-108] Patience now sued Thesiger over his original professional misconduct. Further, she alleged that Sir Cresswell Cresswell, the judge in the original trial, had induced Thesiger's agreement to a settlement by suggesting that he had formed an unfavourable opinion of Patience's case. Her claim was unsuccessful. [Pue (1990) "pp"63-75]

References

Bibliography

* cite book | author=Kingston, C. | publisher=Stanley Paul & Co. | location=London | title=Famous Judges and Famous Trials | year=1923 | pages="pp"167-168
* cite journal | title=Moral panic at the English Bar: Paternal vs. commercial ideologies of legal practice in the 1860s | author=Pue, W. W. | journal=Law and Social Inquiry | volume=15(1) | year=1990 | pages=49–118