The court rejected dicta in an earlier case, Pearlmutter v. Alexander, 97 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, 20 (1979), that an attorney who voluntarily withdraws should be treated the same as one discharged by the client when determining whether the attorney may assert a lien for fees against subsequent recovery.
Full Answer
Yes. Attorney-client fee arrangements may be used to satisfy unpaid hourly fees owing in an unrelated client matter, provided that the client knowingly agrees to such arrangement; the attorney provides full disclosure of the terms to the client, and obtains the client's informed consent to the fee agreement.
Disclaimer: Our response is not formal legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. It is generic legal information based on the very limited information provided. Do not rely upon the information in our response, or anywhere else on this site, when deciding the proper course of a legal matter.
We serve the following localities: Cook County including Arlington Heights, Barrington, Berwyn Township, Chicago, Des Plaines, Glenview, Orland Park, Palos Park, Schaumburg, and Tinley Park; DuPage County including Downers Grove, Naperville, and Bolingbrook; Kane County including Aurora, Elgin and Geneva; Lake County including Waukegan; and Will County including Joliet.
When an attorney withdraws in the middle of a client's case, that withdrawal is usually categorized as either "mandatory" or "voluntary." In this article, we'll explain the difference between these two processes, along with some examples of each.
Mr. Daymude has provided a very good answer to your question. I would add that the State Bar law/rules on fees prevent an attorney from charging you more for working with another attorney, if the work would increase your fees.
An Attorney can file a lien against a client's property for legal work that is not paid for.
The short answer is "maybe". It does not depend on the retainer agreement.
We would need more facts to sort this out but generally your attorney has a lien by the contract you signed, and will maintain it IF you fire him or her. However if the attorney withdraws from the case voluntarily, there's no lien, and there may be other circumstances where the attorney loses the lien.
Well, as an initial issue, you likely gave the attorney a lien in your contract with the attorney - not that he is now trying to "add" the lien. It existed from the start. There are not nearly enough facts here to know for sure, but the lien will likely stay. The issue is how much will his lien be.
It depends. If your prior attorney did work or fronted expenses, he is normally entitled to a lien. If you disagree, discuss it with whoever you hire as a new attorney.
Advice given in this forum does not create an attorney - client relationship. No advice should be relied on without consulting with a local attorney.
First, I would remind you and all others who post questions on AVVO that you should not expect, nor is this site designed for, any meaningful legal advice that can be relied upon. There is no attorney-client privilege and the information you provide isn't enough for a qualified attorney to ethically provide advice. However, what you should expect is some general direction and tips to lead you in the right direction...
Most times if you as the client fire the attorney "with cause" they can't lien a case. But generally speaking the Bar associations allow liens for costs and time expended. Good luck. Advice given in this forum does not create an attorney - client relationship.
Yes. For unpaid fees. A lawyer has an attorney's Koen on papers and can in many states a lien on the case outcome
He can but should not. I would negotiate the lien down. Additionally if you hire another attorney, the lien is paid out of the new attorney's fees so there is no net loss on your recovery.
This is perhaps the most uncommon reason a lawyer would file a motion to withdraw. In situations where illness or injury are the cause of your attorney’s withdrawal, they will likely hand your case over to a competent partner in their firm.
An attorney must follow a careful process to withdraw from a case. This process generally includes the following steps:
If an attorney advises their client to refrain from certain behaviors or actions, yet the client directly opposes this advice, the attorney may withdraw from the case.
If the client fails or refuses to pay the legal fees as outlined in the contract, the attorney may withdraw from the case. Typically, the attorney will provide several warnings requesting payment before they proceed with a motion to withdraw.
If an attorney is made aware of the fact that their client has lied about situations or circumstances, or if they have falsely testified while under oath, the attorney must file a motion to withdraw. If the reason for the attorney’s motion to withdraw is of this nature, they will claim the motion to withdraw is based on “ethical obligations”.
What happens when an attorney withdraws from a case? An attorney can withdraw from a case for a wide variety of reasons. Given a valid reason, the attorney must submit a motion to withdraw to the court. The judge presiding over the case will then either approve or deny the motion. If approved, the client must find a new attorney to take over their case. However, a judge may not always approve the motion to withdraw in which case the motion would go to court.
If an attorney believes that the client has breached the contract, they may choose to withdraw from the case. It is important to note that a client can also terminate the working relationship if they feel the attorney has breached the contract.
The takeaway is simple: Having a well thought out lien provision gives you options that can translate into real money. Because these liens are created by contract, an attorney must have privity of contract with a party against whom the lien is asserted. Without privity, there can be no recovery from the client.
In the non-contingency (hourly) context, the lien can only be created by representation agreements that comply with Rule 3-300 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct (CRPC), which essentially requires that the attorney fully inform the client of the terms and also avoid interests adverse to the client.
Even after an attorney is terminated by a client, the discharged attorney "continue [s] to owe [the client] a fiduciary duty of utmost good faith and fair dealing with respect to, at least, the subject matter of [the attorney's] prior representation of [the client], including [the attorney's] express lien for his attorney's fees.".
That said, and as set forth above, just because they claim it, doesn't mean they get it.
The relationship between attorney and client is a complicated and delicate one. Even with the best of intentions, like any relationship, it can go bad. Sometimes attorneys and clients have fundamental differences in their personalities. Sometimes they just do not see eye to eye.
It is also important as a practical matter to notify the successor counsel of the existence of your lien, preferably in writing. It is not prudent to rely on your former client to inform the successor counsel of the existence of your lien-better to do that yourself.
Although attorney's lien rights are protected by law even if no affirmative notice is served on the successor counsel or the other side, an attorney has the option of filing a notice of lien in the case in which the lien is a sserted. Because of these rules, an attorney's lien is unlike a typical judgment creditor's lien.
An attorney’s lien is created and takes effect when the fee agreement giving rise to the lien is executed. Cetenko, 30 Cal. 3d at 534. Such a lien has priority over other liens created after the attorney-client fee agreement was entered into. Carroll, 99 Cal. App. 4th at 1175. An attorney’s lien, however, must generally be enforced in a separate legal proceeding. The court in which the case is pending and in which a notice of lien may be filed lacks jurisdiction to determine the validity or amount of any attorney’s lien. Carroll, 99 Cal. App. 4th at 1176-77.
If an attorney attempts to enforce a lien for his attorney’s fees in violation of the legal or ethical principles governing attorney’s liens, the lawyer is in breach of his fiduciary duties to his former client.
Successor counsel in the possession of settlement or other proceeds against which a predecessor attorney has asserted a lien has a fiduciary obligation to the attorney lienholder with respect to the funds. See Johnstone v. State Bar, 64 Cal. 2d 153, 155-56 (1966); In re Respondent P, 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 622, 632 (Rev. Dep’t 1993); Cal. Form. Opn. 2008-175. That duty includes the duty to inform predecessor counsel of the fact and amount of settlement. In re Riley, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 91, 111-15 (Rev. Dep’t 1994); Cal. Form. Opn. 2008-175. Moreover, a third party ( e.g., the defendant or the defendant’s insurer) with notice of the plaintiff’s former counsel’s attorney’s lien, may be civilly liable to the lienholder for paying out the funds directly to successor counsel and the plaintiff. See Levin v. Gulf Ins. Group, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1282, 1287-88 (1999).
By reasonably and promptly quantifying liens, consenting to disbursement of undisputed funds and reasonably negotiating with successor counsel the allocation between attorneys of any contingent fee earned, attorneys should be able to resolve most lien disputes without court involvement. Such a result should be compelled not only by ethical considerations, but by practical considerations as well. Drawn out and costly legal battles over entitlement to fees and validity of liens tax not only the lawyers and clients involved, but the judicial system as a whole.
Even after an attorney is discharged by a client, with or without cause, the discharged attorney “continue [s] to owe [the client] a fiduciary duty of utmost good faith and fair dealing with respect to, at least, the subject matter of [the attorney’s] prior representation of [the client], including [the attorney’s] express lien for his attorney’s fees.” In re Feldsott, 3 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 754, 757 (Rev. Dep’t 1997). If an attorney attempts to enforce a lien for his attorney’s fees in violation of the legal or ethical principles governing attorney’s liens, the lawyer is in breach of his fiduciary duties to his former client.
An attorney’s lien (also known as a “charging” lien) is a lien that secures an attorney’s compensation against the funds or judgment recovered by the attorney for the client. Fletcher v. Davis, 33 Cal. 4th 61, 66 (2004).
Where a dispute arises only between successor and predecessor counsel as to the pro-rata allocation of the fee earned, where the client has not disputed the fee earned, the attorney may reveal to prior counsel the fact and amount of settlement, but that attorney must continue to otherwise maintain her duty of confidentiality to her client when attempting to reach an accord with prior counsel. Cal. Form. Opn. 2008-175. In litigation between counsel, “the presiding officer will be in a position to limit disclosure of confidential information to the greatest extent possible” Id. at 6.
The grounds for mandatory withdrawal are set forth in Rule 3-700 (B) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and include where the attorney knows or should know that “the client is bringing an action [or] ... asserting a position in litigation ... without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person,” or “continued employment will result in violation of [the Rules] or of the State Bar Act” or the attorney’s “mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment effectively.” Under the State Bar Act, an attorney may maintain those actions, proceedings or defenses only that appear to the attorney to be “legal or just.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068 (c).)
The “dead-blank loser” rule, so called after the description the lawyer in Hensel gave the case in which he withdrew and later sought to recover a fee, provides that an attorney who withdraws because of a good faith belief the case lacks merit will not be entitled to any fee. The converse, however, is not true. An attorney who withdraws while still believing in the merits does not, ipso facto, have justifiable cause for withdrawal. Under such circumstances, justifiability of withdrawal depends on the particular facts. ( Rus, Miliband & Smith, 113 Cal.App.4th at 672-73.)
An order granting a motion to withdraw does not constitute a finding of justifiable cause for withdrawal. There are many reasons withdrawal may be permitted, including a general breakdown in the relationship between lawyer and client. The relatively permissive attitude that governs withdrawals, however, does not govern determinations of justifiable cause for withdrawal, to which “the law takes a more rigorous approach.” ( Rus, Miliband & Smith , 113 Cal.App.4th at 673.) “The law governing an attorney’s right or duty to merely withdraw from a case ... is a ‘different question’ than an attorney’s right to withdraw and then later recover.” Id. (emphasis in original); ( see also Falco, 188 Cal.App.3d at 1014.) The particular reasons for a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship are not necessarily relevant to whether an attorney may withdraw, but would impact whether the attorney had justifiable cause for withdrawal. ( Falco, 188 Cal.App.3d at 1014-15.)
The decision to withdraw from representing a client is never an easy one, but for contingency fee attorneys, the decision can mean forfeiting fees. This is true even if the attorney believes the grounds for withdrawal are mandatory under the Rules of Professional Conduct (see Rule 3-700 ). Even if withdrawal is permitted by the rules or by the court, it may not be justifiable for purposes of recovering a quantum meruit fee. Justifiable cause is determined independently of whether the withdrawal was ethically permitted. This article explores the interplay between grounds for withdrawal under the Rules of Professional Conduct and justifiable cause for withdrawal allowing fee recovery.
The rules are more complex when an attorney voluntarily withdraws. The attorney is entitled to a quantum meruit fee only if she has “justifiable cause” for withdrawal. This rule was first adopted in Hensel v. Cohen, 155 Cal.App.3d 563 (1984). In Hensel, a personal injury attorney decided, after spending 25.8 hours on it, that the case was a “dead-blank loser” and informed the client to either find new counsel, represent herself or dismiss the case. When the client retained new counsel, the attorney asserted a lien against any eventual recovery.
The “dead-blank loser” rule has been described as a “bright line rule” ( Rus, Miliband & Smith, 113 Cal.App.4th at 672), but this may be an overstatement of the rule’s application. If a lack of merit mandates withdrawal under the Rules of Professional Conduct, Falco suggests the attorney may still recover a fee; even if, presumably, he believed in good faith the case was a dead-blank loser.
The rule has long been established that a contingent fee attorney discharged by the client with or without cause may collect in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of the attorney’s services prior to discharge. ( Fracasse v. Brent, 6 Cal.3d 784, 792 (1972).)
Advice given in this forum does not create an attorney - client relationship. No advice should be relied on without consulting with a local attorney.
First, I would remind you and all others who post questions on AVVO that you should not expect, nor is this site designed for, any meaningful legal advice that can be relied upon. There is no attorney-client privilege and the information you provide isn't enough for a qualified attorney to ethically provide advice. However, what you should expect is some general direction and tips to lead you in the right direction...
Most times if you as the client fire the attorney "with cause" they can't lien a case. But generally speaking the Bar associations allow liens for costs and time expended. Good luck. Advice given in this forum does not create an attorney - client relationship.
Yes. For unpaid fees. A lawyer has an attorney's Koen on papers and can in many states a lien on the case outcome
He can but should not. I would negotiate the lien down. Additionally if you hire another attorney, the lien is paid out of the new attorney's fees so there is no net loss on your recovery.