Question IV: Whether an advocate engaged by the year is worthy of his fee in a year in which he did nothing

The negative seems to be answered from Florus de mera var. qq., lib. 1, quaest. 8, num. 54; Azorius, part. 3, lib. 13, cap. 10, quaestio 10, where, from Bartolus on Leg. diem functo, ff. de offic. assessorum, he says the salary is owed only pro rata temporis.

The opposite is followed by Gattierez in praxi qq., Lib. 1, quaest. 52; Matthaeus de Afflictis, in consti. Regni Siciliae, rub. 81, de salario Advoc.; Azevedo, in Lib. 10, tit. 16, lib. 2, num. 4.

Diana walks the middle path, p. p., Tract. 15, resol. 41, saying that in the forum of conscience at least he is bound to pay, yet not the whole, but a part, in the judgment of a prudent man. So also Bobadilla in politic., tract. 2, lib. 3, cap. 14, num. 63. But if the Advocate were of a genius more for laboring than for idling, nothing of the salary should be diminished, he says, unless another cause were present. It seems to be in the mind of Rebellus, de oblig. iust., part. 1, lib. 14, num. 7.