Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for a valid charging lien set forth by the supreme court in Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So.2d 1383, 1385 (Fla.1983). “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.” Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So.2d 559, 560 (Fla.1986) (citing Sinclair, Louis, 428 So.2d at 1385). Notice is timely where the charging hen is filed prior to entry of the final judgment. See Gaebe, Murphy, Mullen & Antonelli v. Bradt, 704 So.2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Conversely, an attorney’s charging hen is untimely and may not be established in proceedings after final judgment has been entered. See Milio v. Leinoff & Silvers, P.A., 668 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (<HOLDING>). Here, Mr. Johnson did not give notice of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding premature notice of appeal was treated as entered on date of entry of final judgment (B) holding in part as a general rule a trial courts judgment becomes final thirty days after its entry unless a party files a timely notice of appeal or specified posttrial motion (C) holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify its final order more than 30 days after its final judgment (D) holding attorney may not wait more than thirty days from the entry of final judgment give notice of nonrepresentation and then seek to enforce a hen not noticed before the entry of the final judgment (E) holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence
Output (English): holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify its final order more than 30 days after its final judgment