Legal Opinion
Elam v. Monarch Life Insurance Co.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 8, 1991No. 90-1510PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge:
In this certification of questions of law pursuant to D.C.Code § 11-723 (1989), we are asked to decide the following two related questions regarding the nature of an attorney’s charging lien under District of Columbia law arising from a contingent fee agreement between an attorney and client:1
1. Under District of Columbia common law, does a contingent fee agreement between an attorney and his client which sets contingent compensation at “a sum *1168equal to” a portion of any recovery on the client’s cause of action create an attorney’s charging lien in favor of the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- M. A. P. v. RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
- Barnes v. AlexanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Sinclair, Etc. & Zavertnik, PA v. BaucomSupreme Court of Florida · 1983
- Nutt v. KnutSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Recht v. Clairton Urban Redevelopment AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram, P.C. v. HazardDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- Keith Winston Watters v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Brenda Blocker, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- District of Columbia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- In Re BaileyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- Thoma v. Kettler Bros., Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.