[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

To impose a charging lien, the attorney must show:

1. an express or implied contract between attorney and client;
2. an express or implied understanding for payment of attorney’s fees out of the recovery;
3. either an avoidance of payment or a dispute as to the amount of fees; and
4. timely notice.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

To impose a charging lien, the attorney must show:

1. an express or implied contract between attorney and client;
2. an express or implied understanding for payment of attorney’s fees out of the recovery;
3. either an avoidance of payment or a dispute as to the amount of fees; and
4. timely notice.

Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1986).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1986); Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383, 1384–85 (Fla. 1983).

First District: Citizens & Peoples Nat’l Bank v. Futch, 650 So. 2d 1008, 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Brown v. Vermont Mutual Ins. Co., 614 So. 2d 574, 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

Second District: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Athans Chiropractic, 352 So. 3d 896, 899 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); Commons v. Spracklen, 353 So. 3d 116, 117–18 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); Kovar Law Grp., PLLC v. Benchmark Consulting, Inc., 332 So. 3d 47, 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); Riveiro v. J. Cheney Mason, P.A., 82 So. 3d 1094, 1096–97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Third District: Benitez v. Leal, 272 So. 3d 506, 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Cacho v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 124 So. 3d 943, 946 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Schur v. Americare Transtech, 786 So. 2d 46, 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A, v. Rojas, 529 So. 2d 749, 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); rev. denied, 539 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1988).

Fourth District: Mineo Salcedo Law Firm, P.A. v. Cesard, 333 So. 3d 222, 232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); Lubitz v. Schenden, 308 So. 3d 180, 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Menz & Battista, PL v. Ramos, 214 So. 3d 698, 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Richman Greer Weil Brumbaugh Mirabito & Christensen, P.A. v. Chernak, 991 So. 2d 875, 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Fifth District: Walther v. Ossinsky & Cathcart, P.A., 112 So. 3d 116, 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Baker & Hostetler, LLP v. Swearingen, 998 So. 2d 1158, 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Aldar Tobacco Group, LLC v. Gielchinsky, 577 F. App’x 903, 906 (11th Cir. 2014); Austin & Laurato, P.A. v. United States, 539 F. App’x 957, 961 (11th Cir. 2013); Weed v. Washington, 242 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2001).

Southern District: In re Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc. Alien Tort Statute & S'holder Derivative Litig., No. 08-MD-01916-KAM, 2024 WL 4932671 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 08-80465-CIV, 2024 WL 4930609 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2024); Stratos v. AIG Prop. Cas. Co., 2023 WL 4930315, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2023); Greenfeld v. Squidvision Corp., 2022 WL 21770756, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2022); United States v. Described, 2020 WL 13931871, at *6–7 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2020).

Middle District: Denning v. Mankin Law Grp., P.A., 2022 WL 3365273, at *30–31 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2022); Bell v. Ace Ins. Co., 2020 WL 7318956, at *2–3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2020); Benchmark Consulting, Inc. v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2020 WL 5701750, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2020); Garrison v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 3d 1282, 1290 (M.D. Fla. 2017).

Northern District: In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2020 WL 2575506, at *14 (N.D. Fla. May 21, 2020); Mortgage Now, Inc. v. Stone, 2014 WL 12703720, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2014).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Lien – Charging

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: A charging lien is an equitable right that requires only timely notice. See Zaldivar v. Okeelanta Corp., 877 So. 2d 927, 930 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

(3) Because proceedings to resolve charging liens are resolved by courts of equity, the equitable defense of unclean hands may be asserted against a party challenging a lien. Mineo Salcedo Law Firm, P.A. v. Cesard, 333 So. 3d 222, 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

(4) The requirement that the lien attach to the proceeds of the lawsuit precludes its application in a criminal context where the tangible fruits of the services is an acquittal and not something upon which a lien may attach. Law Offices of Alan J. Braverman, P.A. v. State, 564 So. 2d 190, 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

(5) In order to obtain a charging lien for an attorney’s services, an attorney must produce a positive judgment or settlement for the client, since the lien will attach only to the tangible fruits of the attorney’s services. Rochlin v. Cunningham, 739 So. 2d 1215, 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 770 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2000).

(6) In order to give timely notice of a charging lien an attorney should either file a notice of lien or otherwise pursue the lien in the original action. Zimmerman v. Livnat, 507 So. 2d 1205, 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Cirillo v. Cirillo, 408 So. 3d 131, 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025).

(7) Where there is no charging lien involved, a lawyer’s claim for fees must be prosecuted in a separate action at law. Cruz v. Brown, 338 So. 2d 245, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order imposing a charging lien after rendition of the final judgment, which did not reserve jurisdiction for that purpose. Feltman v. Feltman, 721 So. 2d 424, 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

(8) A charging lien attaches to the judgment but relates back and takes effect from the time of the commencement of the services rendered in the action. The attorney fee lien has priority of judgments obtained against the client subsequent to the commencement of the attorney’s services. Miles v. Katz, 405 So. 2d 750, 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

(9) Where attorneys have not kept contemporaneous time records, it is permissible for a reconstruction of time to be prepared. Cohen & Cohen, P.A. v. Angrand, 710 So. 2d 166, 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

(10) When an attorney withdraws from representation upon his own volition, and the contingency has not occurred, the attorney forfeits all rights to compensation. Lynn v. Allstar Steakhouse & Sports Bar, Inc., 736 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

(11) Attorneys may abandon charging liens and proceed against former clients on ordinary contract principles. Attias v. Faroy Realty Co., 609 So. 2d 105, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

(12) While courts do not discourage litigants from settling their controversies out of court, any such settlement without the knowledge of or notice to counsel, and the payment of their fees is a fraud on them whether there was an intent to do so or not. Gaebe, Murphy, Mullen & Antonelli v. Bradt, 704 So. 2d 618, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

(13) In the absence of statutory authority or an express contract or an implied agreement rising out of special equitable circumstances, an attorney is not entitled to the imposition of a charging lien on the real estate of his client. Overholser v. Walsh & Nottebaum, 362 So. 2d 471, 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

(14) Money and other property of clients coming into the hands of a lawyer are not subject to counterclaim or setoff for attorney’s fees, and a refusal to account for and deliver over such property upon demand shall be a conversion. This does not preclude the retention of money or other property upon which a lawyer has a valid lien for services or to preclude the payment of agreed fees from the proceeds of transactions or collections. R. Regulating Fla. Bar 501.1 (Comment).

[/MM_Access_Decision]