Question V: Whether an advocate is bound to defend a client gratis in grave necessity

I assert that in grave and extreme necessity of a poor Defendant, when he is about to be condemned unjustly to the galleys, to death, to the scourge, or to harsh imprisonment, or believed to be about to contract a grave illness by losing the suit, if he cannot otherwise be helped, the Advocate is bound under mortal fault to show him his advocacy gratis, provided there remains for him time beyond what is necessary for preserving his own state; but in extreme necessity he is bound to render the advocacy even of his time and industry, necessary to his state. So D. Thom. 2, 2, quaest. 71, art. 1; Caietanus there; Sylvester, V. Advocatus, num. 16; Lessius, Lib. 2, cap. 71, dub. 7, num. 46; Sotus, Lib. 5, de iustitia, quaest. 8, art. 1; Armilla, V. Advocatus, num. 10; Filliucius, Tom. 21, tract. 40, cap. 10, num. 187; Navarrus, summa Lat., cap. 25, num. 29; Fagundez, lib. 8, cap. 38, num. 20; Tannesius, disp. 4, quaest. 4, num. 125; and others with Bassaeus, V. Advoc., num. 5, who proves it from the first of Ioan. 3, Whoever hath substance, etc.

The reason is that whoever has superfluity is bound in grave necessity to spend of the things necessary to his own state. This doctrine accords with D. Bonaventura, as I said in the disput. de Eleemosyna.

Therefore the Judge is bound to give an Advocate to miserable persons who have not a man, Leg. nec quicquam, ff. de offic. praesul., §. finali; and if an Advocate refuse without cause, the Judge can remove him perpetually from the office of advocacy, Leg. Providendum, Cod. eodem tit.