or allow a reduction in the price, and any action he undertakes with the principal’s best interest in view is effective. His conduct is likewise valid when he spends from the principal’s property in customary ways or in charity, provided there is a sound justification for it. Every one of his acts is assumed to be motivated by sound judgment until the opposite is proven; if it later becomes clear that he has overstepped the limits or caused damage, he must make restitution. Whatever the unrestricted agent—or any other agent—does in contravention of the instructions given is deemed a trespass, and the principal may, if he wishes, hold him liable.

Agency is permissible for selling and buying, contracting marriage, collecting debts and paying them, and, in short, for anything a person may lawfully do on his own. Litigation agency is valid whether the principal is present or absent, with or without the opponent’s consent, so long as the matter itself is legitimate. Once the two litigants have begun presenting their arguments in front of the judge, however, neither of them may then appoint an agent, for Imam Mālik considers that a form of contentiousness—unless one of them fears that his adversary will gain an unfair advantage because of status or the like; in that case he may appoint someone to argue on his behalf.

It is not permissible to hire an advocate on a contingency basis—namely, “If you win my case you receive the agreed sum, and if you do not, you get nothing.” Rather, a fixed fee must be stipulated in all circumstances; otherwise he is entitled to the customary wage for such work. If it becomes apparent that the advocating agent is quarrelsome, pursues falsehood, and obstructs what is right, he is to be barred from acting as an agent.

Imam Mālik expressed two views regarding whether a judge should accept an admission made by the litigation agent against his principal. In one report he allows it; in another he disallows it, stating that what the agent admits does not bind the principal and the judge should not accept it. The prevailing practice among us is that, when the principal has expressly empowered the agent to make admissions, whatever the agent concedes before the judge is binding upon the principal.