Can a lawyer assert a possessory lien on a discharged client's file for unpaid hourly fees?

Plain-English summary

The fee agreement provided that the lawyer would have a lien on the file in the amount of his hourly fees if he was discharged. The client discharged the lawyer and refused to pay the amount due. The client had the ability to pay the fees owed and did not dispute the amount billed.

The committee reviewed the inquiry about asserting an attorney's lien for unpaid fees. It was of the opinion that Formal Opinion 181 sets out the guiding principles, and that from its review of the facts as presented, it did not appear there was any prejudice to the client at this time caused by the lawyer's assertion of the lien rights.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rule 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 later renumbered and amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 discharged client's file under a fee-agreement lien for unpaid hourly fees?

A: On these facts, the committee did not find an ethics problem. It was of the opinion that, applying Formal Opinion 181's guiding principles, the lawyer's assertion of the lien did not appear to prejudice the client at this time.

Q: What facts mattered to the committee's conclusion?

A: The committee emphasized that the client had the ability to pay the fees owed and did not dispute the amount billed, and that the lien did not appear to cause prejudice to the client at this time.

Background and rules framework

The opinion is indexed under the rule then numbered Washington RPC 1.15(d), corresponding to Model Rule 1.16(d), which governs a lawyer's handling and surrender of client property. The committee resolved the question by reference to the principles of its earlier Formal Opinion 181, framing the analysis around whether asserting the lien prejudiced the client given the client's ability to pay and the undisputed amount.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

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

Other opinions cited:

• WSBA Formal Opinion 181 (cited as setting out the guiding principles for an attorney's lien on client property).

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1125: a possessory lien over client property, such as a certificate of title
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1060: an attorney's lien on client papers in a bankruptcy context
• WSBA Ethics Op. 933: retaining client papers when asserting an attorney's lien

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=256

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1176
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 1.15(d), Formal Opinion 181
Subject: Client's property; request for file; possessory lien

The fee agreement provided that the lawyer would have a lien on the file in the amount of his hourly fees if he was discharged. The client discharged the lawyer and refused to pay the amount due. The client had the ability to pay the fees owed and did not dispute the amount billed. The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning the assertion of an attorney's lien for unpaid fees, and was of the opinion that Formal Opinion 181, which with you are familiar, does set out the guiding principles, and from their review of the facts as presented by you, it does not appear that there is any prejudice to your client at this time caused by your assertion of your lien rights.