Monday, March 16, 2026
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Lawyer May Enforce Lien by Suing Client, Competing Attorney
Opinion Acknowledges Case Law Providing That Counsel Wishing to Recover Fees From Judgment Proceeds Must File Separate Action, Says Rule Does Not Require That Rights Be Settled Only as to Represented Party First
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
An attorney seeking to enforce a lien against judgment proceeds may file a declaratory relief action against his clients and another lawyer, who also claims entitlement to the funds based on earlier representation in the matter, in a single lawsuit without having to first establish the validity of the security by way of a separate pleading, the Third District Court of Appeal held Friday.
Acknowledging case law establishing that an attorney’s lien is only enforceable after an adjudication of the validity and amount by way of a separate action from the one in which the client was represented, and jurisprudence disapproving of lawsuits between lien claimants, Justice Aimee A. Feinberg, writing for the court, declared:
“We hold that bringing a single action for declaratory relief against both the clients and a competing attorney lien claimant is a permissible way…to enforce an attorney lien claim on the proceeds of a settlement or judgment.”
Presiding Justice Laurie M. Earl and Justice Jonathan K. Renner joined in the opinion.
Sets of Attorneys
The question arose after two plaintiffs, Brian and Diane Friedland, hired three sets of attorneys to represent them at different times during litigation over injuries sustained in a July 2017 car accident near Lake Tahoe. The first law firm, Bradley, Drendel & Jeanney, represented them for 18 months without filing a pleading.
By 2019, the plaintiffs had terminated the relationship with the firm and hired a Reno-based attorney, Thomas Papez, to represent them. The fee agreement specified that Papez would receive 40 percent of any recovery.
Acting for the Friedlands, Papez filed a personal injury complaint in July 2019 against the other driver. Later that month, Papez filed a notice of attorney lien for $60,000 and withdrew from the case.
In September 2020, the plaintiffs hired the Sacramento-based practitioner Jeffrey Jacobs, again signing a retention agreement providing that the lawyer would receive 40% of any recovery received after filing. The contract also specifies:
“[Jacobs] shall have a first lien for services rendered and expenses and costs advanced on any sums recovered.”
Settlement Agreement
After an agreement to settle the matter for $200,000 was reached in August 2021, the defendant’s insurance company withheld payment of approximately $67,000 of the funds pending resolution of the various attorney lien claims. Bradley, Drendel & Jeanney agreed to accept $5,000, and the insurer paid that amount from the reserved cash.
In June 2022, Jacobs filed an action for declaratory relief against Papez and the Friedlands, seeking a judicial determination of the parties’ respective rights to the remaining withheld settlement proceeds. Papez answered the complaint and moved to dismiss, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Jacobs was required to first establish the existence, amount, and enforceability of his lien against the Friedlands alone.
In January 2024, El Dorado Superior Court Judge Leanne Mayberry dismissed the complaint, declaring that it was procedurally improper for Jacobs to sue Papez to resolve the issue of the competing securities and saying:
“[Papez was] entitled to have the validity and amount of his lien determined first in a separate action prior to Jacobs having the validity and amount of his lien determined.”
A default judgment was entered against the Friedlands after they failed to respond to the pleading.
Saying that “California courts have long recognized liens in favor of an attorney on the proceeds of a prospective judgment awarded to the attorney’s client,” Feinberg noted that the lawyer must bring a separate, independent action against the represented party to establish the existence and amount of the security. She wrote:
“There is no dispute in this appeal that Jacobs’s action was separate and independent from the Friedlands’ personal injury case….The question is whether this particular type of separate action—a declaratory relief suit against both the Friedlands and Papez—was a proper way for Jacobs to seek to enforce his…lien. We conclude that it was.”
Citing the 2004 Third District decision in Brown v. Superior Court, in which the court held that an attorney “is not a party to the client’s action and cannot appear on his or her own behalf to seek any relief in that action, including enforcement of a contractual lien against the proceeds of the judgment,” Feinberg remarked:
“[W]e observed [in Brown] that it would be ‘appropriate’ for the attorney to institute a declaratory relief action against the judgment lien holder under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060….We contemplated that the attorney might name his client as a defendant in such an action as well, although the client would not necessarily have to appear….In this sort of action, the attorney and competing lien holder could ‘litigate the validity, amount, and priority of [the attorney]’s lien,’ and the attorney could ‘enforce that lien in the declaratory relief action.’ ”
She continued:
“That is the course Jacobs took here….And while Brown involved a judgment lien holder and an attorney lien claimant, we see no reason why its rationale would not also extend to cases where the two competing lien claimants are both attorneys.”
Addressing the contention that Jacobs was required to proceed against his client before resolving the matter of the competing liens, the justice commented:
“It is true that courts have disapproved actions only between lien claimants….because ‘enforcement of an attorney’s lien claim is a matter of contract between the attorney and client, and thus it must be resolved as between those contracting parties.’…But here…Jacobs brought his suit simultaneously against both Papez, the competing lien claimant, and the clients, the Friedlands….With the Friedlands included in the suit, the trial court could resolve the validity and amount of Jacobs’s attorney lien claim.”
Feinberg acknowledged that Papez was arguably the senior lien holder under Civil Code §2897, which specifies that “[o]ther things being equal, different liens upon the same property have priority according to the time of their creation.” But she declared:
“We also see no reason why Jacobs had to wait for Papez, the asserted senior lien holder, to first obtain a judicial determination as to the validity and amount of Papez’s own lien, as the trial court concluded. The trial court was correct that priority generally goes to the first-created lien, ‘[o]ther things being equal.’….But other things are not always equal…. By bringing a declaratory relief action simultaneously against both the Friedlands and Papez, Jacobs did not deprive Papez of the opportunity to litigate his own lien claim….To the contrary, Papez had the opportunity to assert the validity, amount, and priority of his own lien against the settlement proceeds in that same action.”
The case is Jacobs v. Papez, 2026 S.O.S. 658.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company