motion to recognize and preserve attorney charging lien
JOHN A. VOS, TRUSTEE V EVANS
FORMER COUNSEL’S MOTION TO PRESERVE ATTORNEY CHARGING LIEN
This is an action involving a petition for partition of real property brought by Plaintiffs John A Vos, Trustee of the Vos Family Trust Dated 8/31/2011 (“Vos”), Walter Lander, Trustee of the Walter Lander Revocable Trust formed on December 10, 1996 (“Lander”), IRA Services Trust Company CFBO Walter Landers IRA Account 562476, dba Forget Trust Co (“IRA Services”) and Corcoran Sherman LLC (“LLC”) against a variety of Defendants including Kristan E. Evans (“Evans.”)
Now before the Court is a motion captioned as a “motion to recognize and preserve attorney charging lien” brought by Attorneys Real Estate Group (“AREG”) which was formal counsel for Evans.
I. Relevant Background
On January 9, 2024, Evans entered into an Attorney-Client Retainer Agreement (“Agreement”) with AREG for legal services to “Defend and prosecute Partition Action venued in Calaveras County, CA.” (Declaration of Teresa M. Boyd (“Boyd Decl.”) ¶ 2, Ex. A.) The Agreement included an Evergreen Retainer whereby an initial retainer of $5,000.00 was deposited into the Client’s Trust Account. The hourly rate for Attorneys was $400.00 and $190.00 for Paralegal/Assistant. (Id. at ¶ 6.) The Agreement further provides for an attorney charging lien against recovery proceeds. (Id. at ¶ 9.)
On September 9, 2024, Evans consented to a Substitution of Attorney wherein she substituted Attorney Kelly A. Vierra for AREG. (Boyd Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. B.) On September 29, 2025, AREG caused to be filed a Notice of Attorney Lien in the amount of $41,568.94 (Boyd Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. C.)
AREG now seeks to have this Court enter an order recognizing and enforcing the charging lien.
II. Legal Standard and Discussion
In California, an attorney's lien is created either by contract or by implication where the retainer agreement clearly provides that the attorney may look to the judgment to seek attorney’s fees. (Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1172.) Although not required to by law, it is common practice and often advisable for the
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
attorney to file a notice of lien in the underlying action. (Ibid.) However, a notice of lien is not the same thing as the lien or lien claim. (Ibid.)
“Appellate courts have consistently held that the trial court in the underlying action has no jurisdiction to determine the existence or validity of an attorney's lien on the judgment.” (Carroll, supra 99 Cal.App.4th at 1173.) This is because “the attorney is not a party to the underlying action and has no right to intervene, [thus] the trial court acts in excess of its jurisdiction when it purports to determine whether the attorney is entitled to foreclose a lien on the judgment.” (Ibid.) Therefore, “an order within the underlying action purporting to affect an attorney’s lien is void.” (Ibid; see also Law Offices of Stanley J.
Bell v. Shine, Browne & Diamond (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1011, 1019 [attorney “contractual lien must be enforced, however, in an independent action by the attorney against the client and the attorney has no right to intervene in the main action to which he is not a party.”])
Under Carroll and other applicable authority, this court has no jurisdiction over a fee dispute involving an agreement between a party in the action and the attorney to that party and such a contractual lien must be enforced in an independent action.
Accordingly, the motion to recognize and preserve attorney’s lien is DENIED.
The clerk shall provide notice of this ruling to the parties forthwith. The Court intends to sign the Order submitted by Defendant.