Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-301 (2026)

Legislative intent

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is hereby found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the Supreme Court, in Henry, Walden, and Davis v. Goodman, 294 Ark. 25 (1987), limited the existing Attorney's Lien Law by allowing only a quantum meruit recovery in a case in which the attorney was dismissed by the client; that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Attorney Lien Law is contrary to what was intended by the enactment of Acts 59 and 306 of 1941, the Attorney Lien Law; that an attorney should have the right to rely on his contract with his client; and that the Attorney's Lien Law should be reenacted to protect the contractual rights of attorneys. Therefore, it is the intent of §§ 16-22-302 — 16-22-304 to allow an attorney to obtain a lien for services based on his or her agreement with his or her client and to provide for compensation in case of a settlement or compromise without the consent of the attorney.

History. Acts 1989, No. 293, § 1.

Publisher's Notes. As to repeal of former provisions relating to lien of attorney, see Publisher's Notes to this subchapter.

Research References

Ark. L. Notes.

Brill, Equity and the Restitutionary Remedies: Constructive Trust, Equitable Lien, and Subrogation, 1992 Ark. L. Notes 1.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Survey—Miscellaneous, 11 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 235.

Case Notes

Applicability.

The attorney's lien statutes, this section through § 16-22-304, do not apply to cases in which an attorney is terminated for cause. Williams v. Ashley, 319 Ark. 197, 890 S.W.2d 260 (1995).

An attorney's lien extends only to fees and disbursements rendered in the particular action in which they were incurred, and does not cover a general balance due the attorney, charges rendered in other causes, or charges in causes not intimately connected with the particular action. Grayson v. Bank of Little Rock, 334 Ark. 180, 971 S.W.2d 788 (1998).

Attorney that had been retained by an employee to represent the employee in a workers' compensation case, but then had been told by the employee that he wanted to end the case, was entitled to assert a lien on a final settlement that was reached after the employee hired a second lawyer instead of abandoning the case; the fact that the attorney had been involved in the case before there was any controversy did not preclude the attorney from imposing a lien for fees. Wren v. DeQueen Sand & Gravel Co., 87 Ark. App. 212, 189 S.W.3d 522 (2004).

Attorney-Client Relationship.

Without an attorney-client relationship, there is no basis for claiming an attorney's fee under the statute. Fox v. AAA U-Rent It, 341 Ark. 483, 17 S.W.3d 481 (2000).

Attorneys are entitled to obtain a lien for services based on agreements with their clients and, while an attorney's lien may in some instances be enforceable against another attorney, such a lien is not created where there is no attorney-client relationship; thus, a former employer was not entitled to such a lien on a settlement obtained by a former employee in a class action suit. Morgan v. Chandler, 367 Ark. 430, 241 S.W.3d 224 (2006).

Cited: Lockley v. Easley, 302 Ark. 13, 786 S.W.2d 573 (1990); Haskins Law Firm v. American Nat'l Property & Cas. Co., 304 Ark. 684, 804 S.W.2d 714 (1991); Lancaster v. Fitzhugh, 310 Ark. 590, 839 S.W.2d 192 (1992); Finnegan v. Johnson, 326 Ark. 586, 932 S.W.2d 344 (1996).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Lee v. Daniel, 91 S.W.3d 464 (Ark. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lee v. Daniel, 91 S.W.3d 464 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 16× “Particularly, she contends that the statute is an unlawful intrusion into this court's powers to regulate the practice of attorneys at law. However, we decline to reach this issue, because Fowler failed to preserve it for appellate review.”

Crockett & Brown, P.A. v. Courson, 849 S.W.2d 938 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 16× “Act 293 of 1989, codified as Ark.Code Ann. §§ 16-22-301 to -304 (Supp.”

MacK v. Brazil, Adlong & Winningham, PLC, 159 S.W.3d 291 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 12× “Attorney's Lien In order to perfect an attorney's lien in Arkansas, an attorney must follow the procedure set out in Ark.Code Ann. § 16-22-304 as follows: XX-XX-XXX.”

Crockett & Brown, P.A. v. Wilson, 864 S.W.2d 244 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 5× “In a supplemental opinion we stated that, while Crockett & Brown was entitled to a reasonable fee, the statutory attorney’s lien provided in Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-22-301 to 304 (Supp.”

Pomtree v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 121 S.W.3d 147 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 4× “He asserts that State Farm should have issued a check for the entire settlement amount of $700,000, claiming that, under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-301 et seq. (Repl.”

McDermott v. McDermott, 986 S.W.2d 843 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 4× “The legislature's intent is set forth in section 16-22-301: Therefore, it is the intent of §§ 16-22-302___ XX-XX-XXX to allow an attorney to obtain a lien for services based on his or her agreement with his or her client and to provide for compensation in the case of a…”

Williams v. Ashley, 890 S.W.2d 260 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 6× “The order decreed as follows: appellant was entitled to withdraw as appellee’s counsel pursuant to appellee’s termination of appellant’s services; the March 10, 1993 letter agreement entitied appellant to “his hourly time” once appellee’s husband retained counsel and the divorce…”

Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Kosin, 378 S.W.3d 135 (Ark. 2011). · cites it 2× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-301 (Repl.1999). Under the hen statute, Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-22-804, the lien established in favor of the attorney attaches to the proceeds of any settlement, verdict, decision, judgment, or final order in his or her client’s favor.”

Death & Permanent Total Disability Trust Fund v. Brewer, 65 S.W.3d 463 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “1999) provides that "it is the *466 intent of §§ 16-22-302 to -304 to allow an attorney to obtain a lien for services based on his or her agreement with his or her client and to provide for compensation in case of a settlement or compromise without the consent of the attorney.”

Crockett & Brown, P.A. v. Wilson, 901 S.W.2d 826 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 7× “The court further held, however, that C&B was not entitled to the statutory lien under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-22-301 -304 (Supp. 1991) because that lien provision applied only where an attorney was terminated without cause.”

Lockley v. Easley, 786 S.W.2d 573 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 3× “But subsequent to that decision Act 293 of 1989 became the law [ Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-22-301 through 307 (1989)].”

Morgan v. Chandler, 241 S.W.3d 224 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-301 (Repl. 1999) (emphasis added).”

Show all 24 citing cases →

— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-301(c) — 1 case

Hunter v. Midfirst Bank (E.D. Ark. 2021).

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.