Opinion ID: 2162723
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The assertion of the lien.

Text: Putting to one side the question of respondent's conflict of interest at the closing, we conclude there is substantial doubt as to the justification for the Committee's finding of economic coercion of the N.'s by respondent in asserting a non-existent lien against the sale proceeds for his fee in the criminal matter. There is no claimed basis for a statutory or common-law attorney's lien. However, respondent contended at the hearing that in view of the express agreement that his bill would be paid out of the proceeds of the closing he felt that the real estate matter and the criminal matter were somewhat intertwined and he therefore had a right to impress a lien. While respondent has not put the matter in terms of an equitable lien there is some legal foundation for application of such a concept in these circumstances. An equitable lien is sometimes raised  ex aequo et bono, according to the dictates of equity and conscience, as where a contract of reimbursement could be implied at law. See Temple v. Clinton Trust Company, 1 N.J. 219, 226 (1948); Rutherford Nat. Bank v. H.R. Bogle & Co., 114 N.J. Eq. 571, 573-574 (Ch. 1933). Here there was an express agreement to pay respondent from the sale proceeds. Relying thereon, he took no action to enforce the N.'s fee obligation pending the closing, and he was not warned of the intended repudiation of the agreement until a few days before the closing. The N.'s had no other means of meeting the fee. A sufficiently arguable basis for assertion by respondent of an equitable lien for the fee claim out of the sale proceeds is made to appear to warrant our withholding imposition of discpline on respondent on the asserted ground.