*541 OPINION
By the Court,
This action was commenced to recover a stipulated sum of money allegеdly due Molezzo Reporters for reporting services rendered by them to Attorney Pаtt at his request. 1 Patt did not expressly disclaim responsibility for their charges until later, when he declined personally to pay their bills. Neither did he advise the reporters that he рersonally would be responsible for their charges when their services were engaged.
The district court found Patt not liable in these circumstances. Its decision was prеmised upon the ordinary rule that an agent is not personally liable on a contract made for his principal where the party with whom he is contracting knows that he is acting for another. Moreover, the district court believed that to impose liability upon the attorney would sanction champerty in violation of Supreme Court Rule 183 whiсh provides that “. . . A lawyer may not properly agree with a client that the lawyer shаll pay or bear the costs of litigation; he may temporarily and in good faith advance expenses as a matter of convenience, but subject to reimbursement.”
The reporters have appealed contending that an attorney who orders their services, and who does not at that time disclaim liability therefor, should be required to pay.
1. Case authority elsewhere is divided. There is solid support for the view of thе district court that the attorney, as agent, is not personally liable on contraсts made for his disclosed principal and client in the absence of his express аgreement to be bound. McCorkle v. Weinstein,
We prefer the Burt v. Gahan, supra, rule. As noted by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the аttorney-client relationship involves much more than mere agency, and is subject to established professional standards. The attorney, and not his client, is in charge of litigаtion, Gottwals v. Rencher,
The attorney decides whether the services of a certified reporter are needed for dеpositions or for court transcription of testimony. Because of his control of the litigation process, he should be treated as a principal, severally аnd jointly liable with his client for reporting services rendered. As noted in Burt v. Gahan, supra, therе is no hardship in this rule, as it is a simple matter for the attorney to exclude himself from liability by а timely statement to that effect. 2 [Headnote 3]
2. SCR 183 reads in part: “A lawyer may not properly agrеe with a client that the lawyer shall pay or bear the expenses of litigation; hе may temporarily and in good faith advance expenses as a matter of сonvenience, but subject to reimbursement.”
The rule specifically allows the attorney to advance expenses. The only restriction is that the client remain liable to the attorney for reimbursement. Such reimbursement is to be accommodated within the attorney-client relationship, and does not touch the right of the reporter tо collect for his services from the attorney who ordered them without disclaiming liability therefor.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment entered below and direct the district court to enter judgment in compliance with this opinion.
Notes
In one instance the reporting was ordered by the court without spеcifying responsibility for payment.
We find no cases regarding the attorney’s liability for reporting costs ordered by the court without court specification for payment. In such circumstance, it would appear fair for all counsel and their clients to be jointly and severally liable to the reporter.