| Abstract: | In Cradock v. Piper (1850) the court allowed a solicitor-trustee to charge for his professional services in relation to certain litigation This was in the absence of a charging clause, and in apparent violation of a strict and general principle of the law of trusts that trustees had to act without remuneration. The rule still exists today, though it is invariably described as anomalous and lacking any rational basis.This paper examines whether the court did indeed establish an exception to the general no-remuneration rule, or whether it applied legal principle correctly The analysis of the court's judgment, of case law, and of contemporary attitudes to professional trustees, shows that the court was correct in refusing to prohibit remuneration where the connection was too tenuous to give rise to a conflict of interest. |
