Attorneys – Lien

Listen to this article

Where a judge denied a request for a hearing on the determination of an attorney’s lien, a remand must be ordered because the denial of the requested hearing is contrary to the policy established by G.L.c. 221, §50, to protect attorneys from not being compensated for legal services rendered.

“Attorney Joseph Provanzano formerly represented John G. Marchand (plaintiff) in filing a negligence complaint against Jaclyn Santoro (defendant). Three years after filing suit, the plaintiff discharged Provanzano and obtained new counsel. Thereafter, Provanzano filed a notice of attorney’s lien and requested a hearing. Provanzano now appeals from (1) the judgment of dismissal, arguing that the matter should not have been dismissed while there was a pending lien issue and (2) orders entered November 4, 2024, denying the plaintiff’s motion to determine the attorney’s lien and Provanzano’s motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal of the matter without granting a hearing to determine the amount of his attorney’s lien. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for a hearing consistent with this order. …

“Provanzano contends that the judge abused his discretion in declining to address the attorney’s lien. We agree. … To enforce a statutory attorney’s lien, an attorney must show that ‘(1) an action was commenced, (2) the attorney appeared for the client in that action, (3) a court entered a judgment, decree, or order in that action, (4) the judgment, decree, or order was favorable to the attorney’s client, and (5) proceeds were derived from that judgment, decree, or order’ (citations omitted). Northeastern Avionics, Inc. v. Westfield, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 509, 513 (2005). Here, none of these conditions are contested. In fact, the plaintiff agreed to a hearing on Provanzano’s attorney’s lien to determine the validity of the lien and the amount due Provanzano.

“Here, the judge’s order denying the parties’ requested hearing on the determination of the attorney’s lien is contrary to the policy established by G.L.c. 221, §50, to protect attorneys from not being compensated for legal services rendered. … Provanzano’s attorney’s lien became choate and attached to the nisi order. … Considering that his lien was timely filed and accepted by the court, Provanzano was entitled to a hearing on the lien, and the fact that the underlying matter was settled and dismissed did not extinguish his right to be compensated for his work as prior counsel. …

“Indeed, it was precisely after the case was reported settled and an order entered, that Provanzano’s lien matured and was ripe for determination. …

“Further, it is unclear from the record whether Provanzano received notice of the nisi order deadline. …

“Finally, it matters not that the underlying case was no longer pending; the judge could still determine the lien: ‘Upon request of the client or of the attorney, the court in which the proceeding is pending or, if the proceeding is not pending in a court, the superior court, may determine and enforce the lien.’ G.L.c. 221, §50. …

“The judgment of dismissal and the November 4, 2024 order denying the motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal are affirmed. The November 4, 2024 order denying the motion to determine the attorney’s lien is reversed. We remand the matter to the Superior Court for a hearing on the attorney’s lien.”

Marchand v. Santoro (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-049-26) (7 pages) (Docket No. 24-P-1438) (May 11, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.