Action for a lien on the proceeds of a lawsuit; Equitable lien; Johnson v. Bush Lumber Co.; Warren Tool Co. v. Stephenson; Principle that an equitable lien cannot be imposed if the proponent has an adequate remedy at law; In re Moukalled Estate; Yedinak v. Yedinak; Ashbaugh v. Sinclair; Failure to provide authority for a claim; Liggett Rest. Group, Inc. v. City of Pontiac; Effect of a party’s solvency on the other party’s remedy at law; Maclean v. Fitzsimons; Principle that equity grants a court broad power to fashion relief as the circumstances require; Madugula v. Taub; Collateral estoppel; Ditmore v. Michalik; Young v. Detroit City Clerk; Ford v. Woodward Tap, Inc. (Oakland County Circuit Court)

The court held that the trial court properly granted appellee-law firm’s motion to terminate appellant-attorney’s lien on settlement proceeds. Appellant represented plaintiff in the underlying wrongful death action. Before the action was settled, he left appellee’s employment, but asserted a lien on any settlement proceeds. He claimed that pursuant to an employment contract, he was to receive 40% of any contingency fees recovered from cases he brought to appellee. The trial court ruled that he was not entitled to an equitable lien because he had an adequate remedy at law, and was not entitled to a charging lien because he did not have a contract with plaintiff. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by not finding that he was entitled to equitable lien, noting he has an adequate remedy at law. If he “were not granted an equitable lien, he could nonetheless collect the portion of the settlement proceeds that he is allegedly owed by bringing a cause of action against appellee for breach of contract.” It also rejected his claim that his remedy at law is “inadequate because he ‘would be forced to incur costly litigation and long delays to vindicate his legal claims.’” While “litigating a claim is certainly inconvenient, it may be necessary in this case in order for a court to determine whether appellant and appellee had a contract, what the terms of that contract were, and whether appellee violated those terms thereby entitling appellant to damages.” It further rejected his contention that his legal remedy was inadequate given appellee’s solvency issues. “While we understand appellant’s concern, there is nothing in the record before us to warrant the conclusion that appellant would be unable to collect in full any damages that may be awarded to him from a favorable judgment for breach of contract against appellee.” Finally, it rejected his argument, based on a circuit court case (Ford), that the trial court’s ruling was precluded by collateral estoppel because the parties fully litigated whether he “was entitled to an equitable lien before another court,” which decided that he was. “While Ford involved the same parties and issue, the underlying transaction in that case involved different plaintiffs and a different defendant.” As such, because the Ford decision arose from a different transaction, it lacked preclusive effect. Affirmed.