Liens For Attorney Fees, Retainer Agreements: Broad Retainer Lien Language Relating To A Lien For General Representation Did Allow For Attorney’s Lien Claim Work

Also, Lien Claim Work Can Encompass Unrelated Work To A Specific Litigation Case.

            In Callahan & Blaine v. Vogeler, Case No. G055912 (4^th Dist., Div. 3 July 24, 2019) (unpublished), attorney-defendant in pro per balked at a contractual breach lawsuit brought by Callahan & Blaine—a well-known Orange County law firm—based on broad attorney lien language in the retention agreement:  a lien on the client’s future recoveries, even if not representing the client, and with the lien reaching “general representation and litigation” which included the action at issue where a settlement was reached.  Appellant’s technical arguments on why the attorney’s lien did not attach were dismissed because (1) the broad language did give C&B a claim to general representation work, and (2) an attorney’s lien asserted in an action need not be limited only to fees or costs related to that action (Bluxome Street Associates v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 206 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1152-1154 (1988)).  Beyond that, C&B gave a discount on their lien in a settlement agreement releasing certain items, so equity did not favor appellant’s technical arguments to the contrary.  Acting Presiding Justice Moore was the author of the 3-0 opinion.