Opinion ID: 2598937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Sarman is factually inapposite to the appeal at hand

Text: Aside from the fact that the statements in Sarman constitute dicta and are overbroad, we further conclude that Sarman is inapposite to the disposition of this case based on two important facts. First, as explained above, the client in Sarman consented to the district court's adjudication of the displaced attorney's retaining lien, as the Sarman court explicitly explained that the client in that case did not object to the power of the lower court to hear evidence and determine the fee due her displaced attorneys, but consented to the procedure outlined by the court. 80 Nev. at 539, 396 P.2d at 848. Unlike the client in Sarman, Argentena did not request or consent to the district court's adjudication of Jolley Urga's retaining lien. Second, the client in Sarman (and the clients in Gordon and Earl, the cases upon which the Sarman and Gordon courts relied) did not assert a legal malpractice claim against the fee-seeking attorney as a defense. This court has stated that when the client asserts that the attorney committed legal malpractice, it is proper for the district court to refuse to decide those issues in a summary proceeding in the pending case. Morse et al. v. District Court, 65 Nev. 275, 287-88, 195 P.2d 199, 204-05 (1948). In this case, Argentena argued that Jolley Urga was not authorized to waive Argentena's right to recover attorney fees from the plaintiff. While Jolley Urga concedes that a summary proceeding is inappropriate when the client asserts a legal malpractice claim against its former attorney, Jolley Urga argues that the district court's summary proceedings were proper in this case because Argentena's legal malpractice claim lacked merit. We reject Jolley Urga's proposition that the district court's summary adjudication of the dispute was proper because Argentena's legal malpractice defense allegedly lacked merit. Instead, we reiterate statements made in Morse and conclude that a district court's summary adjudication of a fee dispute in the underlying action is inappropriate when the client asserts negligence or misconduct on the part of their former attorney. See 65 Nev. at 287-88, 195 P.2d at 204-05. For these reasons, we determine that Sarman is distinguishable from the facts of this case and conclude that Sarman is inapposite. In sum, because a district court lacks jurisdiction to summarily adjudicate an attorney-client fee dispute in the underlying action when the attorney does not have an enforceable charging lien or the client does not request that a retaining lien be extinguished or consent to the district court's adjudication of a retaining lien, we conclude that the district court was without power to adjudicate the fee dispute between Argentena and Jolley Urga. Because the district court exceeded its jurisdiction, we conclude that the district court's order is void. We further note that even if the district court had jurisdiction to resolve the fee dispute in this case, such summary proceedings would have been improper in light of Argentena's objection to the court's adjudication based on its legal malpractice claim. Accordingly, we reverse. In reversing the district court's order and judgment, we further instruct that when an attorney does not have an enforceable charging lien, a client does not move the court to resolve the retaining lien, or the client refuses to consent to the court's adjudication of a retaining lien, the proper method by which the attorney should seek adjudication of the fee dispute is an action against his or her former client in a separate proceeding. See Don C. Smith, Jr., Cause of Action by Attorney for Recovery of Fee Under Contingent Fee Contract, in 5 Causes of Action 259, 299 (1st ed.1983) (stating that [w]hen there is no lien involved, the attorney must proceed in a separate action at law to resolve the fee dispute); see also 7A C.J.S. Attorney & Client, §§ 419, 422 (2004) (when the attorney and client agreed to the value of the attorney's services prior to representation, [t]he proper form of action by which to enforce payment, generally, is by an action at law on the contract). Therefore, because the district court lacked jurisdiction to summarily adjudicate the dispute in this case, if Jolley Urga seeks resolution of the dispute, it must file a separate action against Argentena.