A. Any person having or claiming a cause of action (i) sounding in tort, (ii) for liquidated or unliquidated damages on contract, or (iii) for annulment or divorce may contract with any attorney to prosecute the same, and, upon contracting such attorney, the attorney shall have a lien upon the cause of action as security for his fees for any services rendered in relation to the cause of action or claim. When any such contract is made, and written notice of the claim of such lien is given to the client or former client, the opposite party or such party's attorney or agent, and the clerk of court in which a case may be pending, any settlement or adjustment of the cause of action is void against the lien so created, except as proof of liability on such cause of action. Written notice of the lien shall be given either within 45 days of the end of representation or (a) in causes of action sounding in tort or for liquidated or unliquidated damages on contract, before settlement or adjustment, whichever is earlier or (b) in cases of annulment or divorce, before final judgment is entered, whichever is earlier. Nothing in this section affects the existing law in respect to champertous contracts. In causes of action for annulment or divorce, the court may not determine the validity or amount of the lien until the divorce judgment is final and all residual disputes regarding marital property are concluded. Nothing in this section affects the existing law in respect to exemptions from creditor process under federal or state law.
B. Notwithstanding the provisions in subsection A, a court in a case of annulment or divorce may, in its discretion, exclude spousal support and child support from the scope of the attorney's lien.
C. The validity and amount of the lien may be determined either by motion in the case in which the lien is claimed, or by separate action after final judgment has been entered therein or if no case has been filed. The validity and amount of the lien shall be determined by the court without a jury.
Code 1950, § 54-70; 1988, c. 765; 2001, c. 495; 2023, c. 234.
Notes of Decisions
In re Outsidewall Tire Litig., 52 F. Supp. 3d 777 (E.D. Va. 2014).
· cites it 11× “At issue post-judgment in this copyright infringement and conversion case is a dispute between (1) plaintiffs, who won a final and now-affirmed $26 million judgment against various foreign corporations and (2) Gilbert LLP, plaintiffs’ former counsel, over the value of the…”
Hughes v. Cole, 465 S.E.2d 820 (Va. 1996).
· cites it 7× “Twiford, Decker, Ballance, Harmon, and Marsh filed applications in the trial court for the enforcement of attorneys’ liens pursuant to Code §§ 54.1-3932 and -3933. 6 The attorneys asserted that they were terminated without cause and requested that the court determine their…”
Michigan Mut. Ins. v. Smoot, 128 F. Supp. 2d 917 (E.D. Va. 2000).
· cites it 4× “See Va.Code §§ 54.1-3932, 65.2-311. Furthermore, the Workers’ Compensation Act requires insurers such as the Carrier to pay to attorneys a pro rata share of any monies the insurer is reimbursed from an employee.”
Montavon v. United States, 864 F. Supp. 519 (E.D. Va. 1994).
· cites it 3× “Virginia law provides, in pertinent part, that: Any person having or claiming a right of action sounding in tort, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages on contract, may contract with any attorney to prosecute the same, and the attorney shall have a lien upon the cause of…”
Appleton v. Appleton, 68 Va. Cir. 208 (Portsmouth Cir. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 3× “an attorney employed under a contingent fee contract is discharged without just cause and the client employs another attorney who effects a recovery, the discharged attorney is entitled to a fee based upon quantum meruit for services rendered prior to discharge and, as security…”
Marcus, Santoro & Kozak v. Hung-Lin Wu, 652 S.E.2d 777 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 2× “No issue was raised below regarding any other defect in the notice of the lien of fieri facias, such as a claim of lack of due process, or that the Firms had a lien interest of their own under Code § 54.1-3932 or otherwise.”
Roberts v. Virginia State Bar, 818 S.E.2d 45 (Va. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Our holding, however, was quite specific: Having in mind the special nature of a contract for legal services , we hold that when, as here, an attorney employed under a contingent fee contract is discharged without just cause and the client employs another attorney who effects a…”
In Re Smith, 419 B.R. 622 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2008).
· cites it 3× “In Virginia, an attorney’s lien is founded upon the provisions of Virginia Code § 54.1-3932, which provides, in pertinent part: A.”
Walton & Adams, P.C. v. D & H Distrib. Co., 33 Va. Cir. 98 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 6× “Jamborsky This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment, pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-3932 , for collection of an attorneys’ fees lien in the amount of $17,970.”
Ropes & Gray, LLP v. Jalbert (In Re Engage Inc.), 330 B.R. 5 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2005).
“In causes of action for annulment or divorce, an attorney may not exercise his claim until the divorce judgment is final and all residual disputes regarding marital property are concluded.”
Mains v. Hargett, 43 Va. Cir. 109 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Virginia Code § 54.1-3932 provides that an attorney hired in a tort or contract action may institute a lien upon the claim in order to secure fees for legal services rendered.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-3932(A) — 4 cases
In Re Smith, 419 B.R. 622 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2008).
“In Virginia, an attorney’s lien is founded upon the provisions of Virginia Code § 54.1-3932, which provides, in pertinent part: A.”
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.