Court Opinion

ID: 9507747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:25:02.701021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:23.144700
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE WEBER,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority which “by judicial fiat” extends lien protection to attorneys who have filed their retainer agreements with the Division of Workers’ Compensation.
As set forth in the majority opinion, section 37-61-420, MCA, provides that a lien attaches from the commencement of an action or the service of an answer. The legislature has determined that a lien is appropriate for an attorney where he has commenced an action for a plaintiff or filed an answer for a defendant in pending litigation. The legislature has not provided for such a lien on the part of an attorney for services prior to the commencement of an action.
Here the majority has concluded that it will extend lien protection to those attorneys who have filed a retainer *419agreement without the commencement of an action. While there may be a valid argument that such protection is appropriate for attorneys representing workers’ compensation claimants, it seems to me that such argument should be made to the legislature, the appropriate body for this type of legislation, rather than this Court.
As with other liens, I would defer to the provisions adopted by the legislature.