Liens For Attorney’s Fees: Where One Attorney Fixed His Fee Recovery Under Attorney’s Liens, That Part Of A Judgment Was Sustained Even Though Other Parts Relating To Remaining Funds To Be Released And Successor Attorney’s Claims Would Remain To Be

Opinion Shows You How A Good, Successful Race By One Attorney May Get A Resolution First!

            Aresh v. Marin-Morales, Case Nos. G060579/G060827 (4^th Dist., Div. 3 June 5, 2023) (published) is an interesting decision on attorney priority for fee recovery in settlements.  It may tell competing attorneys that the race goes to the swift, but that the second attorney then must litigate fee entitlement with his clients after the first attorney won the race.  Actually, if the clients or all attorneys participate in the case, closure might be achieved.

            The lessons from the first paragraph emanate from an interesting judgment, where a first attorney recovered fees under protest by the second attorney refusing to fully participate in the proceedings between first attorney and client.  If we understand this opinion based on its very precise construction of the judgment, first attorney did vindicate his attorney’s lien rights but the trial judge exceeded things by resolving how the remaining proceeds should be allocated to the client inclusive of the second attorney’s fee recovery rights.  So, in the end, first attorney did a good thing by pressing his rights, such that client and second attorney had more litigation or negotiations ahead of them as far as what to do.  The judgment was not void as far as first attorney’s rights. 

            Justice Goethals authored the 3-0 opinion.