Can a lawyer record a statutory attorney's lien against a client's real property to secure unpaid fees?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether, under the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may record a statutory attorney's lien. On the facts, a lawyer terminated in a fee dispute during a divorce recorded an attorney's lien under AS 34.35.430, and the lien surfaced years later, clouding the former client's sale of unrelated real property. The opinion concludes that recording such a lien violates Rules 1.5, 1.8, and 1.16.

The opinion first notes that AS 34.35.430 sets out a procedure for an attorney's lien against client papers or money but does not reference recording, and that a court has held the statute does not authorize recording an attorney's lien. Even if recording were statutorily permissible, the opinion concludes it would violate the ethics rules. A recorded lien stays recorded indefinitely and clouds title to all of the client's real property, surfacing only when the client tries to sell, which circumvents the principle that claimed fees are always subject to court or fee-arbitration review and creates an opportunity for the lawyer to overreach at the moment of greatest pressure on the client.

The opinion applies three rules. Rule 1.8(a) bars acquiring a security interest adverse to a client without its procedural protections (fair terms, full disclosure, advice to seek independent counsel, and informed consent), so recording a lien creates an improper adverse security interest absent that compliance. Rule 1.16(d) requires a lawyer to protect a client's interests on termination and to retain property only as permitted by law, which recording does not satisfy. Rule 1.5(f) encourages avoiding and amicably resolving fee controversies, which recording undercuts. The opinion aligns with ABA Informal Opinion 1461 and Colorado Bar Opinion 110, and with prior Alaska opinions subordinating the lawyer's interest in payment to the client's rights. It notes the proper path: reduce the fee claim to judgment, which affords the client the fee-arbitration process and an opportunity to respond, then record that judgment.

In practice

Under this opinion, as the Alaska rules stood at the time, a lawyer may not record a statutory attorney's lien under AS 34.35.430 against a client's real property to secure unpaid fees; the opinion treats doing so as violating Rules 1.5, 1.8, and 1.16. The opinion identifies the permissible alternative: reduce the disputed fee to judgment, a process that gives the client notice of fee arbitration and a chance to respond, and record the resulting judgment. It frames the rule as part of a consistent line subordinating the lawyer's interest in getting paid to the client's rights.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer record an attorney's lien on a client's house for unpaid fees?

A: No. The opinion concludes recording a statutory attorney's lien under AS 34.35.430 violates Rules 1.5, 1.8, and 1.16, and notes a court has held the statute does not even authorize recording.

Q: Why is recording the lien a problem?

A: The opinion explains a recorded lien clouds title to all the client's property indefinitely, surfaces only at sale, sidesteps court and fee-arbitration review of fees, and lets the lawyer overreach when the client is under pressure to close.

Q: How can a lawyer properly secure a disputed fee against real property?

A: Per the opinion, by reducing the fee claim to judgment, which requires advising the client of fee arbitration and affords a full opportunity to respond, and then recording that judgment.

Q: Does Rule 1.8 apply even if the lien were statutorily allowed?

A: Yes. The opinion says recording would create a security interest adverse to the client that is improper without complying with Rule 1.8(a)'s disclosure, independent-counsel, and informed-consent requirements.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(a) (acquiring an interest adverse to a client, analog of Model Rule 1.8(a)), 1.16(d) (protecting client interests on termination, Model Rule 1.16(d)), and 1.5 / 1.5(f) (fees and avoiding fee controversies). It reads AS 34.35.430 (statutory attorney's lien) and relevant Alaska case law on perfecting and enforcing such liens.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Alaska RPC 1.8(a) (interest adverse to a client)
• Alaska RPC 1.16(d) (protecting client interests on termination)
• Alaska RPC 1.5, 1.5(f) (fees; avoiding fee controversies)

Statutes:

• AS 34.35.430 (statutory attorney's lien)

Cases:

• In re Rodvik, 367 B.R. 148 (D. Alaska 2007); Sheehan v. Estate of Gamberg, 677 P.2d 254 (Alaska 1984); Miller v. Paul, 615 P.2d 615 (Alaska 1980)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Informal Opinion 1461; Colorado Bar Op. 110; Alaska Ethics Opinions 88-6, 95-6, 2003-3, 2004-1, 2009-1

See also

• AL Bar Op. 1990-86: Contingent-Fee Attorney's Lien and Quantum Meruit
• AK Bar Ethics Op. 2015-2: Holding Unsolicited Client Property

Source

• Landing page: https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/
• Original PDF: https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2012-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

ALASKA BAR ASSOCIATION
ETHICS OPINION 2012-1
MAY A LAWYER RECORD
AN ATTORNEY’S LIEN (AS 34.35.430)
AGAINST A CLIENT’S REAL PROPERTY
Question Presented
Under the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct, may a lawyer record a
statutory attorney lien?
Facts
A client is represented by a lawyer in a divorce action. As a result of a
fee dispute, the attorney is terminated. Following termination, the attorney
records an attorney lien pursuant to AS 34.35.430. After the completion of the
divorce, the recorded lien is discovered several years later when the client seeks
to sell real property unrelated to the divorce.
Conclusion
Recording a lien for attorneys’ fees pursuant to AS 34.35.430 violates
Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5, 1.8 and 1.16.
Discussion
Alaska Statute 34.35.430 sets out the procedure for asserting an
attorney lien for fees against client papers or money in possession of the lawyer
or an adverse party. Unlike other lien statutes of Chapter 35, AS 34.35.430
does not reference recording. One court has specifically held that AS
34.35.430 does not authorize the recording of an attorney lien.1 In re Rodvik,
367 B. R. 148 (D. AK 2007). For a general discussion of the procedure for
asserting, perfecting, and enforcing a statutory attorney’s lien, the reader is
referred to Sheehan v. Estate of Gamberg, 677 P.2d 254 (Alaska 1984). See
also Miller v. Paul, 615 P. 2d 615 (Alaska 1980)(statutory lien rights must be
balanced against harm to client). Even if recording a lien was statutorily
permissible, it is our conclusion that doing so would violate the Alaska Rules of
Professional Conduct as further discussed.

1 Real property whose title is effectively clouded by the recordation of the

attorney lien claim cannot be fairly considered to be the papers of a client,
money in the possession of a client or lawyer; see also AS 34.35.430(a)(2) and
(3), or part of a judgment for costs.

1

A lien that has been recorded remains recorded indefinitely. This
potentially harms the client in a number of ways. For example, the recorded
lien adversely affects the title of all real property owned by the clients, whether
the subject of litigation or not. Because the recorded lien may only become
known at the time that the former client is seeking to sell real property, it
circumvents the principle that all claimed attorney fees are always subject to
review by a court or Fee Arbitration Panel. See Ethics Opinion 2009-1.
Recording the lien also creates the potential for a lawyer overreaching
with respect to fee collection at a time when there is the greatest pressure on
the client to resolve the fee dispute in favor of the attorney, i.e., at the time of
sale of real property when the client wants to complete the transaction and is
expecting to receive money. As a practical matter, title companies will not
complete a real estate transaction if an issue exists as to a potential lien. In
such circumstances, the client is required to resolve the matter or place the
amount in dispute in trust.
Rule 1.8(a) of the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a
lawyer from acquiring a security interest adverse to a client unless there is
specific compliance with the procedure of Rule 1.8(a), including but not limited
to, full and reasonable terms, full disclosure, the recommendation that the
client seek independent representation, and the requirement of informed
consent by the client. See Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion No. 88-6
(propriety of securing attorney’s fees by means of a lien on real property). For
that reason, even if an attorney were to argue that recording a lien was
permissible under statute, doing so would create a security interest adverse to
the client that would be improper without complying with the procedure
required by Rule 1.8.
The prior termination of the attorney-client relationship provides further
reason why a lawyer should not record a lien. Rule 1.16(d) of the Alaska Rules
of Professional Conduct requires a lawyer “to take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests” with Rule 1.16(d)
indirectly addressing attorney liens by referencing the retention of client
property “only to the extent permitted by law.” Recording a lien does not
reasonably protect a client’s interests and, as previously discussed, does not
appear to be permitted by law.
Finally, whether before or after termination of representation, Rule 1.5(f)
of the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct encourages a lawyer to be zealous
in efforts to avoid controversies over fees with clients and attempt to resolve
amicably any differences on the subject. Recording a lien without resolving
the dispute makes no effort to avoid controversy.

2

Published ethics opinions support the conclusion that recording of the
lien is ethically improper. ABA Informal Opinion 1461,2 addressed the specific
issue of an attorney lien in the context of a divorce proceeding, stating:
Mere existence of a legal right does not entitle a lawyer to stand on
that right if ethical considerations require that he forego it. For
instance, EC 2-23 exhorts lawyers to forego a legal right to “. . . .
sue a client for a fee unless necessary to prevent fraud or gross
imposition by the client.” The same standard should be applied in
determining whether or not to exercise an attorneys’ lien.
....
The burden is on the lawyer to determine whether the
circumstances justify withdrawal before pending matters are
concluded and whether, in addition, they justify assertion of an
attorney’s lien to which he may be entitled under law.
Colorado Bar Association Ethics Opinion 110 also addresses the issue of
recording a lien in the context of divorce representation, observing that “until
the lien is reduced to judgment, funds held by a lawyer remain the property of
a client” and the “mere assertion of the lien in most situations will be
insufficient to give the lawyer the right to record the notice of lien against real
property.”
In doing so, the Colorado Bar Association cited Colorado’s
counterpart to Alaska’s Rule 1.8 and 1.16.3
Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinions have repeatedly affirmed the
principle that the lawyer must, to the extent reasonably practicable, protect the
interests of both existing and former clients even if doing so means yielding
leverage as to payment of fees. See Ethics Opinion 2004-01 (Lawyer must not
withhold expert reports even if client refuses to pay); Ethics Opinion 2003-03
(Client entitled to entire file, even if lawyer unfairly discharged; “the lawyer's
interest in getting paid must be subordinate to the rights of the client.”); Ethics
2 See Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion No. 88-6, citing Informal Opinion

1461 for the proposition that a lawyer should take into account the financial
situation of the client, the sophistication of the client in dealing with lawyers,
whether the fee is reasonable, whether the client clearly understands and
agrees to pay the fee, whether imposition of a lien would prejudice important
rights or interests of the client or of other parties, whether the failure to impose
the lien would result in fraud or gross imposition by the client, and whether
there are less stringent means by which the matter can be resolved or the
amount which is owed or will be owing can be secured.
3

Similar cautions are contained in Section 43 of the Restatement of The Law Governing
Lawyers and the commentary following the section.
3

Opinion 95-6 (Upon discharge, client entitled to return of complete file; lawyer
entitled to assert a lien against the file; however lawyer's interest in getting paid
must be subordinate to the rights of the client and lawyer may not prejudice a
client's rights by withholding property of the client which is essential to the
client's case); Ethics Opinion 83-2 (return of client’s papers required upon
termination). The same policy considerations lead to the conclusion that an
attorney lien should not be recorded.
If an attorney wishes the security of a recordable lien on real property,
the attorney has the ability to do so notwithstanding this opinion. The attorney
can reduce the fees claimed in the lien to judgment with the final judgment
being recorded. Because this procedure requires that the client be advised of
the fee arbitration procedure and affords the client a full opportunity to
respond to the fee claim, this is the appropriate procedure to accomplish this
goal.
Approved by the Alaska Bar Association Ethics Committee on November
3, 2011.
Adopted by the Board of Governors on January 27, 2012.

G:\Ds\COMM\ETHICS\OPINIONS\2012-1.doc

4