Opinion ID: 1925424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Lien for Attorney's Fees.

Text: Secs. 256.36, 256.37, and 256.38, Stats., set forth our statutory authority for attorneys' liens. Sec. 256.38, Stats., provides in substance that no settlement in a personal-injury or wrongful-death action shall be valid unless consented to by the attorney appearing for the claimant or by order of the court. This section has no application  here for the reason no action on the claim had been started. Sec. 256.36, Stats., creates the lien: LIEN ON PROCEEDS OF ACTIONS TO ENFORCE CAUSE OF ACTION. Any person having or claiming a right of action, soundingin tort or for unliquidated damages on contract, may contract with any attorney to prosecute the same and give such attorney a lien upon such cause of action and upon the proceeds or damages derived in any action brought for the enforcement of such cause of action, as security for his fees in the conduct of such litigation; when such agreement shall be made and notice thereof given to the opposite party or his attorney no settlement or adjustment of such action shall be valid as against the lien so created, provided that such agreement for fees shall be fair and reasonable, and this section shall not be construed as changing the law in respect to champertous contracts. Insofar as a statutory lien is concerned, Goldman's complaint alleges only that he was retained by the claimant to prosecute the claim for personal injuries against Home Mutual and that he, Goldman, notified Home Mutual of such retainer. Under the statute the contract must have two material provisions. The claimant must agree to retain the attorney to prosecute his claim and must give such attorney a lien upon such cause of action and upon the proceeds or damages derived in any action brought for the enforcement of such cause of action. Mr. Goldman does not allege that Saunders agreed to give him a lien. An allegation of retainer is not sufficient to imply an agreement for a lien. Sec. 256.36, Stats., further provides, when such agreement shall be made and notice thereof given to the opposite party or his attorney no settlement or adjustment of such action shall be valid as against the lien so created. A mere notice by the attorney that he has been retained by the  claimant is not sufficient notice of such agreement to inform the opposite party of the lien. An agreement for a lien and notice of the lien are prerequisites to creation and enforcement of the lien. The failure to allege then is fatal to a complaint to enforce the lien. This is not a case where terms of the contract are not set forth and the complaint is subject to motion to make more definite and certain. Morse v. Gilman (1863), 16 Wis. 531 (), 534 (); Young v. Lynch (1886), 66 Wis. 514, 29 N. W. 224. The facts alleged in this complaint do not establish the basic requirement of the creation of the lien. The complaint is properly challenged by demurrer.