Action involving a charging lien against settlement proceeds; Equitable liens; Barnes v. Alexander; Warren Tool Co. v. Stephenson; Berke v. Murphy; Principle that an equitable lien cannot be imposed if the proponent has an adequate remedy at law; In re Estate of Moukalled; Yedinak v. Yedinak; Ashbaugh v. Sinclair; Effect of a party’s solvency on the other party’s remedy; Maclean v. Fitzsimons; Principle that equity grants a court broad power to fashion relief as the circumstances require; Madugula v. Taub

Holding that the trial court erred by finding that an equitable lien was authorized in this case, the court reversed that part of its order. Appellee-attorney represented plaintiffs in their underlying negligence action. He left appellant-law firm’s employ after the case was settled, but before the trial court entered the award. Claiming he had a fee-splitting arrangement with appellant, appellee asserted a charging lien over 25% of the funds appellant was to receive from the arbitration proceeds. The trial court granted in part and denied in part appellant’s motion to discharge the lien, ruling that appellee was not entitled to a charging lien because he did not have a direct attorney-client relationship with plaintiffs. However, it found he was entitled to an equitable lien. On appeal, the court agreed with appellant that the trial court erred by finding than an equitable lien was authorized, noting that appellee had an adequate remedy at law. “The trial court correctly recognized that appellee ‘may [have] a claim at law to enforce his employment contract.’” However, it “erred by concluding that an equitable lien would provide appellee with ‘a more complete remedy’ due to appellant’s ‘purported precarious financial condition.’” Because “appellant was solvent, there was no basis for the trial court to conclude that an equitable lien would provide appellee with ‘a more complete remedy’ than he would receive by prevailing on a breach of contract claim. If appellee is entitled to a portion of the attorney fees from the underlying case, then he would be able to recover the same amount in an action for breach of contract as he would from his asserted equitable lien.” Because appellee did not challenge the trial court’s ruling that he was not entitled to an attorney’s charging lien, the court did not address it.