Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) An attorney has a lien for his or her compensation, whether specially agreed upon or implied, as hereinafter provided:

(a) Upon the papers of the client, which have come into the attorney's possession in the course of his or her professional employment;

(b) Upon money in the attorney's hands belonging to the client;

(c) Upon money in the hands of the adverse party in an action or proceeding, in which the attorney was employed, from the time of giving notice of the lien to that party;

(d) Upon an action, including one pursued by arbitration or mediation, and its proceeds after the commencement thereof to the extent of the value of any services performed by the attorney in the action, or if the services were rendered under a special agreement, for the sum due under such agreement; and

(e) Upon a judgment to the extent of the value of any services performed by the attorney in the action, or if the services were rendered under a special agreement, for the sum due under such agreement, from the time of filing notice of such lien or claim with the clerk of the court in which such judgment is entered, which notice must be filed with the papers in the action in which such judgment was rendered, and an entry made in the execution docket, showing name of claimant, amount claimed and date of filing notice.

(2) Attorneys have the same right and power over actions to enforce their liens under subsection (1)(d) of this section and over judgments to enforce their liens under subsection (1)(e) of this section as their clients have for the amount due thereon to them.

(3) The lien created by subsection (1)(d) of this section upon an action and proceeds and the lien created by subsection (1)(e) of this section upon a judgment for money is superior to all other liens.

(4) The lien created by subsection (1)(d) of this section is not affected by settlement between the parties to the action until the lien of the attorney for fees based thereon is satisfied in full.

(5) For the purposes of this section, "proceeds" means any monetary sum received in the action. Once proceeds come into the possession of a client, such as through payment by an opposing party or another person or by distribution from the attorney's trust account or registry of the court, the term "proceeds" is limited to identifiable cash proceeds determined in accordance with RCW 62A.9A-315(b)(2). The attorney's lien continues in such identifiable cash proceeds, subject to the rights of a secured party under RCW 62A.9A-327 or a transferee under RCW 62A.9A-332.

(6) Child support liens are exempt from this section.

[ 2004 c 73 s 2; Code 1881 s 3286; 1863 p 406 s 12; RRS s 136.]

Notes:

Purpose—Intent—Application—2004 c 73: "The purpose of this act is to end double taxation of attorneys' fees obtained through judgments and settlements, whether paid by the client from the recovery or by the defendant pursuant to a statute or a contract. Through this legislation, Washington law clearly recognizes that attorneys have a property interest in their clients' cases so that the attorney's fee portion of an award or settlement may be taxed only once and against the attorney who actually receives the fee. This statute should be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose. This act is curative and remedial, and intended to ensure that Washington residents do not incur double taxation on attorneys' fees received in litigation and owed to their attorneys. Thus, except for RCW 60.40.010(4), the statute is intended to apply retroactively." [ 2004 c 73 s 1.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 51 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case: Ross v. Scannell, 647 P.2d 1004 (Wash. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ross v. Scannell, 647 P.2d 1004 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 16× “Can an attorney recover fees, based on a contingency fee agreement if, prior to full completion of the contingency, the attorney ceases to render the required legal services for his client? 3.”

Smith v. Moran, Windes & Wong, PLLC, 145 Wash. App. 459 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 17× “12 Creation of Lien ¶12 The 2004 amendments to RCW 60.40.010, the attorney’s lien statute, provide in relevant part as follows: (1) An attorney has a lien for his or her compensation, whether specially agreed upon or implied, as hereinafter provided: (d) Upon an action,…”

In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against VanDerbeek, 153 Wash. 2d 64 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 6× “When she seeks to collect debt *88 owed by clients, VanDerbeek acts in her official capacity as an attorney.”

In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Vanderbeek, 101 P.3d 88 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 6× “We find this argument unpersuasive. When she seeks to collect debt owed by clients, VanDerbeek acts in her official capacity as an attorney.”

Aiken, St. Louis & Siljeg, P.s. v. Jennifer Linth, 380 P.3d 565 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 29× “The superior court also found that the amount of attorney fees owed is a contested factual issue.”

Ferguson Firm, PLLC v. Teller & Assocs., PLLC, 178 Wash. App. 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “The fee agreement between Ferguson and Waid provides that Waid “shall have a lien against any proceeds recovered by, or on behalf of, [Ferguson] in connection with the claims arising out of [the fee dispute with Teller], including pursuant to RCW 60.40.010, et seq.” Waid…”

Dennis G. Ott, P.S. v. Est. of Whitmire, 140 P.3d 618 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “080 and RCW 60.40.010. Whitmire’s estate counters that because Ott failed to move for disbursal of the surplus funds and failed to levy against them before Whitmire died, the funds automatically passed to her estate upon her death.”

Smith v. Moran, Windes & Wong, Pllc, 187 P.3d 275 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 18× “[12] Creation of Lien ¶ 12 The 2004 amendments to RCW 60.40.010, the attorney's lien statute, provide in relevant part as follows: (1) An attorney has a lien for his or her compensation, whether specially agreed upon or implied, as hereinafter provided: .”

King Cnty. v. Seawest Inv. Assocs., LLC, 141 Wash. App. 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Although the 2004 amendments mention an action to enforce a lien on a judgment in RCW 60.40.010(2), the statute does not set out a procedure for enforcement.”

Suleiman v. Cantino, 656 P.2d 1122 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 7× “An Attorney's Lien Under RCW 60.40.010 3 Franklin's argument with respect to the attorney's lien statute is twofold.”

King Cnty. v. Seawest Inv. Assocs., LLC, 170 P.3d 53 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Although the 2004 amendments mention an action to enforce a lien on a judgment in RCW 60.40.010(2), the statute does not set out a procedure for enforcement.”

Jones v. Int'l Land Corp. Ltd., 755 P.2d 184 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 7× “Hunsinger argues that subsection 3 of RCW 60.40.010 does not allow filing of a lien prior to judgment because the amount of his fee was contingent on the amount of the recovery, and that subsection 4 provides only for a lien on a judgment.”

Show all 51 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(1) — 5 cases

Ferguson Firm, PLLC v. Teller & Assocs., PLLC, 178 Wash. App. 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “The fee agreement between Ferguson and Waid provides that Waid “shall have a lien against any proceeds recovered by, or on behalf of, [Ferguson] in connection with the claims arising out of [the fee dispute with Teller], including pursuant to RCW 60.40.010, et seq.” Waid…”

In re the Marriage of Glick, 230 P.3d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

Cascade Designs, Inc., Respondent/cr-appellant V. Robert Lerner, Appellant/cr-respondent (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

Rey v. Rey (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Brian Waid v. The Ferguson Firm Pllc (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(1)(0) — 1 case

In Re The Marriage Of: Natalya Shulikov v. Alex Shulikov (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(1)(a) — 3 cases

In re the Marriage of Glick, 230 P.3d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

In Re The Marriage Of: Natalya Shulikov v. Alex Shulikov (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

Glick v. McIlwain, 230 P.3d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(1)(c) — 1 case

Asha Singh, V State Of Washington, Et Ano. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(1)(d) — 10 cases

Aiken, St. Louis & Siljeg, P.s. v. Jennifer Linth, 380 P.3d 565 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The superior court also found that the amount of attorney fees owed is a contested factual issue.”

Smith v. Moran, Windes & Wong, PLLC, 145 Wash. App. 459 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “12 Creation of Lien ¶12 The 2004 amendments to RCW 60.40.010, the attorney’s lien statute, provide in relevant part as follows: (1) An attorney has a lien for his or her compensation, whether specially agreed upon or implied, as hereinafter provided: (d) Upon an action,…”

Smith v. Moran, Windes & Wong, Pllc, 187 P.3d 275 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “[12] Creation of Lien ¶ 12 The 2004 amendments to RCW 60.40.010, the attorney's lien statute, provide in relevant part as follows: (1) An attorney has a lien for his or her compensation, whether specially agreed upon or implied, as hereinafter provided: .”

Munding v. Meade (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2020).

In Re The Marriage Of: Natalya Shulikov v. Alex Shulikov (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(1)(e) — 4 cases

In re the Marriage of Glick, 230 P.3d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

Cascade Designs, Inc., Respondent/cr-appellant V. Robert Lerner, Appellant/cr-respondent (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

Glick v. McIlwain, 230 P.3d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

In Re The Marriage Of: Natalya Shulikov v. Alex Shulikov (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(2) — 7 cases

Aiken, St. Louis & Siljeg, P.s. v. Jennifer Linth, 380 P.3d 565 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The superior court also found that the amount of attorney fees owed is a contested factual issue.”

King Cnty. v. Seawest Inv. Assocs., LLC, 141 Wash. App. 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Although the 2004 amendments mention an action to enforce a lien on a judgment in RCW 60.40.010(2), the statute does not set out a procedure for enforcement.”

King Cnty. v. Seawest Inv. Assocs., LLC, 170 P.3d 53 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “Although the 2004 amendments mention an action to enforce a lien on a judgment in RCW 60.40.010(2), the statute does not set out a procedure for enforcement.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(3) — 9 cases

Wilson v. Henkle, 724 P.2d 1069 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).

Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Dillon, 626 P.2d 1004 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981).

Suleiman v. Cantino, 656 P.2d 1122 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “An Attorney's Lien Under RCW 60.40.010 3 Franklin's argument with respect to the attorney's lien statute is twofold.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(4) — 11 cases

Ross v. Scannell, 647 P.2d 1004 (Wash. 1982). “Can an attorney recover fees, based on a contingency fee agreement if, prior to full completion of the contingency, the attorney ceases to render the required legal services for his client? 3.”

In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against VanDerbeek, 153 Wash. 2d 64 (Wash. 2004). “When she seeks to collect debt *88 owed by clients, VanDerbeek acts in her official capacity as an attorney.”

In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Vanderbeek, 101 P.3d 88 (Wash. 2004). “We find this argument unpersuasive. When she seeks to collect debt owed by clients, VanDerbeek acts in her official capacity as an attorney.”

Suleiman v. Cantino, 656 P.2d 1122 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “An Attorney's Lien Under RCW 60.40.010 3 Franklin's argument with respect to the attorney's lien statute is twofold.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(5) — 7 cases

Aiken, St. Louis & Siljeg, P.s. v. Jennifer Linth, 380 P.3d 565 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The superior court also found that the amount of attorney fees owed is a contested factual issue.”

In Re The Marriage Of: Natalya Shulikov v. Alex Shulikov (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(6) — 1 case

In Re The Marriage Of: Natalya Shulikov v. Alex Shulikov (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(a) — 2 cases

In Re The Marriage Of: Natalya Shulikov v. Alex Shulikov (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

Steven M. Heeb v. Carl N. Warring (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(d) — 2 cases

Mww, Pllc v. Ryan Smith (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

Brian Waid v. The Ferguson Firm Pllc (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(e) — 3 cases

Glick v. McIlwain, 230 P.3d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(l)(c) — 1 case

Dennis G. Ott, P.S. v. Est. of Whitmire, 140 P.3d 618 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “080 and RCW 60.40.010. Whitmire’s estate counters that because Ott failed to move for disbursal of the surplus funds and failed to levy against them before Whitmire died, the funds automatically passed to her estate upon her death.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(l)(d) — 4 cases

Aiken, St. Louis & Siljeg, P.s. v. Jennifer Linth, 380 P.3d 565 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The superior court also found that the amount of attorney fees owed is a contested factual issue.”

United States v. MM MR RM Corp., 880 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (W.D. Wash. 2012).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 60.40.010(l)(e) — 1 case

In re the Marriage of Glick, 230 P.3d 167 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

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.