🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
WSBA 1987

Can a lawyer assert a possessory lien over a client document held to secure fees, such as a car's certificate of title?

Short answer: The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer could assert a possessory lien over a document in the lawyer's possession (a certificate of title to an automobile) that the client had given to secure the lawyer's fees. The committee declined to opine on the legal question of whether the lawyer could execute against any interest in the vehicle.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1987
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer could assert a possessory lien over a document in the lawyer's possession, here a certificate of title to an automobile, that the client had given to the lawyer to secure the fees.

The committee drew a line at the next step. It could not render any opinion on the legal question of whether the lawyer could proceed to execute against any interest in the vehicle. The ethics question (asserting the possessory lien over the document held) was distinct from the underlying legal question (the lawyer's ability to reach the vehicle itself).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The provision then numbered RPC 1.15(d), governing a lawyer's handling and surrender of client property, corresponds to Model Rule 1.16(d) and was renumbered and rewritten in the current rules. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer hold a client's certificate of title as security for unpaid fees?

A: Per the opinion, yes. The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer could assert a possessory lien over a document in the lawyer's possession that the client had given to secure the lawyer's fees.

Q: Did the committee say the lawyer could seize or sell the car to collect the fee?

A: No. The committee could not render any opinion on the legal question of whether the lawyer could proceed to execute against any interest in the vehicle.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addresses a lawyer's possessory (retaining) lien over client property held to secure fees, a subject connected to the provision then numbered Washington RPC 1.15(d) on a lawyer's handling and return of client property, corresponding to Model Rule 1.16(d). The committee confined itself to the ethics question of asserting the lien over a document the lawyer already held, and expressly treated the question of executing against the vehicle as a legal question outside its province.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Washington RPC 1.15(d) (client property; a lawyer's handling and surrender of property), corresponding to Model Rule 1.16(d).

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1125
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC 1.15(d)
Subject: Client property; attorney's lien

The Committee was of the opinion that you could assert a possessory lien over a document in your possession constituting a certificate of title to an automobile which was given to you to secure your fees. The Committee could not, however, render any opinion on the legal question of whether you could proceed to execute against any interest in the vehicle.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1987 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.