(a) Attorneys-at-law shall have a lien on all papers and money of their clients in their possession for services rendered to them, in reference thereto, and may retain such papers until the claims are satisfied, and may apply such money to the satisfaction of the claims.
(b) Upon actions and judgments for money, they shall have a lien superior to all liens but tax liens, and no person shall be at liberty to satisfy the action or judgment, until the lien or claim of the attorney for his or her fees is fully satisfied; and attorneys-at-law shall have the same right and power over action or judgment to enforce their liens as their clients had or may have for the amount due thereon to them.
(c) Upon all actions for the recovery of real or personal property, and upon all judgments for the recovery of the same, attorneys-at-law shall have a lien on the property recovered, for their fees, superior to all liens but liens for taxes, which may be enforced by the attorneys-at-law, or their lawful representatives, as liens on personal and real estate, and the property recovered shall remain subject to the liens, unless transferred to bona fide purchasers without notice.
(d) The lien in the event of an action, provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, shall not attach until the service upon the defendant or respondent of summons, writ or other process. However, when any claim is settled between the parties after the filing of an action but before the defendant has actual notice of the filing of the action by service of summons or otherwise, such settlement shall operate as a full discharge of the claim.
(Code 1907, §3011; Code 1923, §6262; Code 1940, T. 46, §64.)
Notes of Decisions
Boykin Timber & Farm Resources, Inc. v. Nix, 438 So. 2d 294 (Ala. 1983).
· cites it 11× “Nix and Kendall then filed a motion to impress a lien pursuant to Code 1975, § 34-3-61, seeking 33⅛% of the value of the condominium unit sold by the Boy-kins or the proceeds thereof.”
Glenn Armentor Law Corp. v. Counts, 683 So. 2d 964 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “On August 17, 1993, Counts filed a "Notice of Attorney's Lien," pursuant to § 34-3-61, Code 1975, in the Circuit Court of Mobile *966 County, Alabama.”
Ross v. Scannell, 647 P.2d 1004 (Wash. 1982).
· cites it 2× “NOTES [1] Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, West…”
Srivastava v. Comm'r, 220 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Compare Ala.Code § 34-3-61 with Dow Chem. Co. v. Benton, 163 Tex.”
Osorio v. K & D Erectors, Inc., 882 So. 2d 347 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Gonzalez and the Gonzalez Law Firm [1] , on December 12, 2000, filed, in the Shelby Circuit Court, a claim and lien for legal services pursuant to § 34-3-61, Ala.Code 1975, upon all proceeds received by Osorio as a result of his action seeking recovery for his on-the-job…”
Brechbill v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 156 So. 3d 939 (Ala. 2014).
· cites it 9× “The trial court held a hearing and issued an order stating that the law firm would have a lien under Ala.Code 1975, § 34-3-61, against any settlement or judgment that became payable to Brechbill arising from his claims against State Farm.”
Stand. Fire Ins. v. Knowles, 129 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (N.D. Ala. 2015).
· cites it 5× “Ala. Code § 34-3-61 (emphasis added). Acker and Hayes insist that Estes , in addition to supporting their right to a fee under the common fund doctrine, also provides support for their argument that they have a lien, superior in right to "that of the other claimants, because, in…”
Ex parte Watters, 212 So. 3d 174 (Ala. 2016).
“On July 13, 2004, Watters filed an attorney’s lien against the Conecuh property pursuant to § 34-3-61, Ala.Code 1975, to secure the payment of his attorney fees in the case.”
Eaton v. Keller Plumbing Co., 587 So. 2d 338 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991).
· cites it 10× “On December 16, 1988, Haynes filed a lien pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 34-3-61, for expenses paid on behalf of Eaton and an additional amount as attorney’s fee based on quantum meruit totalling $1,276.”
Harrison v. Harrison, 733 So. 2d 435 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “The wife also claims that the right to intervene pursuant to the attorney’s-lien statute, § 34-3-61, Ala.Code 1975, does not extend to divorce cases and, therefore, that Leathers did not have a right to intervene.”
Bar-Til, Inc. v. Superior Asphalt, Inc., 219 So. 3d 553 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017).
“Ala. Code § 34-3-61 (b). These statutes codify the equitable principle long recognized at common law that attorneys deserve payment for their successful services.”
— Ala. Code § 34-3-61(a) — 2 cases
— Ala. Code § 34-3-61(b) — 9 cases
Srivastava v. Comm'r, 220 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2000).
“Compare Ala.Code § 34-3-61 with Dow Chem. Co. v. Benton, 163 Tex.”
Stand. Fire Ins. v. Knowles, 129 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (N.D. Ala. 2015).
“Ala. Code § 34-3-61 (emphasis added). Acker and Hayes insist that Estes , in addition to supporting their right to a fee under the common fund doctrine, also provides support for their argument that they have a lien, superior in right to "that of the other claimants, because, in…”
— Ala. Code § 34-3-61(c) — 2 cases
Boykin Timber & Farm Resources, Inc. v. Nix, 438 So. 2d 294 (Ala. 1983).
“Nix and Kendall then filed a motion to impress a lien pursuant to Code 1975, § 34-3-61, seeking 33⅛% of the value of the condominium unit sold by the Boy-kins or the proceeds thereof.”
— Ala. Code § 34-3-61(d) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.