ILNews

COA: Attorney entitled to lien on former client's file

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An attorney doesn’t have to produce documentation of the amount of money a former client owes in order to have a valid retaining lien, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Gary attorney Douglas Grimes appealed the denial of his verified motion to quash subpoena duces tecum in a medical malpractice action filed by Victoria Crockrom. Crockrom originally hired Grimes as her attorney in the action and he collected certain medical records and put them in her file. He later withdrew as her counsel and Crockrom’s new attorney, Bessie Davis, requested the medical records from Grimes as she was having difficulty obtaining the same documents.

Grimes said he would give her the documents if Crockrom paid the attorney fees she owed him. He said he claimed a retaining lien in the file and documents since Crockrom hadn’t paid.

The trial court denied Grimes motion to quash the subpoena and ordered him to produce the record. At that point, Crockrom still hadn’t paid the attorney fees owed to Grimes.

In Douglas M. Grimes v. Victoria Crockrom, et al., No. 45A03-1008-CT-491, the Court of Appeals, citing Bennett v. NSR Inc., 553 N.E.2d 881, 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990), found the trial court erred when it ordered him to produce the medical records without also providing security for the payment of attorney fees. Crockrom disputed the amount of fees Grimes claimed she owed and argued that the lack of any documentation or itemization showing the amount she owed rendered Grimes’ retaining lien invalid.

The judges rejected her argument, saying that a common law retaining lien on records in possession of an attorney arises on rendition of services by the attorney. There’s no legal authority tying the validity of a retaining lien to the provision of an itemized bill to the client, wrote Judge Edward Najam.

“Indeed, a retaining lien is complete and effective without notice to anyone,” he wrote. “And the reasonableness of a fee, as reflected by an attorney’s lien, is irrelevant to the determination of whether the lien has been established.”

The judges also held that Crockrom’s contract with Grimes doesn’t require him to release the medical records even though she hasn’t paid. There’s no provision in the contract that excludes a retaining lien or anything else in it that would preclude one.

The appellate court remanded with instructions to determine the amount of attorney fees owed to Grimes and then order Crockrom to provide security for the payment of the attorney fees in the amount of the fees owed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  2. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  3. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  4. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

  5. Once again Indiana has not only shown what little respect it has for animals, but how little respect it has for the welfare of the citizens of the state. Dumping manure in a pond will most certainly pollute the environment and ground water. Who thought of this spiffy plan? No doubt the livestock industry. So all the citizens of Indiana have to suffer pollution for the gain of a few livestock producers who are only concerned about their own profits at the expense of everyone else who lives in this State. Shame on the Environmental Rules Board!

ADVERTISEMENT