ATTORNEY CHARGING LIENS; FIFTH DISTRICT REVERSES LIEN AMOUNT WHERE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ANCHORED THE LIEN TO A PRIOR FEE JUDGMENT AND “REASONABLE RATE” FINDINGS, RATHER THAN THE ATTORNEY CLIENT CONTRACT; REMANDED FOR CORRECTED JUDGMENT BASED ON CONTRACT TERMS

Baldwin v. Douglas R. Beam, P.A., 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2593 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 5, 2025):

The Fifth District reversed a charging lien judgment because the trial court erred in how it calculated the lien amount. The court reiterated that a charging lien is an attorney’s equitable right to recover fees and costs for services rendered in a lawsuit that produces a recovery, and it has four elements: (1) a valid contract, (2) an understanding that payment depends on recovery, (3) an attempt to avoid payment or a dispute over the amount owed, and (4) timely notice.

Because a charging lien enforces the attorney-client contract, the lien must be consistent with that contract and cannot be based on an amount determined by the trial court that contradicts the contract terms.

Here, the trial court used a prior fee judgment against an opposing party as the “starting point” for the lien calculation. But that prior judgment was based on judicial findings regarding reasonable hourly rates and time under a Rowe-type analysis, not on the fee agreement between the plaintiff and the attorney.

The opinion notes, for example, that the prior fee judgment treated $600 per hour as a reasonable rate, yet the attorney conceded that neither the written retainer agreement nor the billing records reflected a $600 rate, and the plaintiff never testified to endorsing that rate or the total fee award.

Because there was no basis to anchor the lien to the prior fee judgment rather than the contract, the Fifth District reversed and remanded for the trial court to determine what the plaintiff owed under the contract, including whether additional evidence would be needed.