Note: This article was written by ROBIN READER (612) and was originally published on her website Broken Arrow Forum on November 19, 2010, and reappears here on this blog with her permission.
Here is some info on an attorney lien. This is paraphrased from West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.
It’s the right of a lawyer to hold a client’s property or money until payment has been made for legal services.
If the client owes fees, the attorney can place a claim on their property until they pay. There are two types of attorney liens:
A Charging Lien is the attorney’s right to a portion of the judgment that was won for the client. This applies only to money awarded in a particular case.
A Retaining Lien covers any property that an attorney might have come into possession of during the course of the lawsuit. The attorney can hold that property until he is paid.
Since this entry has Sisney as the party, we can assume the lien has something to do with his agreement with Richardson. Richardson may have taken the case under the agreement that he would get paid a portion of the proceeds, and since he is withdrawing, he needs to make sure he gets his portion of the money awarded. Or they may have an hourly fee agreement, and Sisney may owe him some fees.
So why is Richardson withdrawing? If he hasn’t been paid in full, he may have decided at this point that he didn’t like the odds of collecting any money. In addition, given Sisney’s history of misrepresenting facts, Richardson might also be concerned that the new audit may uncover some wrongdoing Sisney hasn’t been up front about, further damaging his case and probability of getting paid.
Since the BA Ledger article was published less than an hour after the OSCN entry was posted, it seems likely that Richardson gave the Ledger the heads-up ahead of time, in order to provide his quotes and try to head off speculation.