Sue Davidson, P.C. v. Naranjo

I dissent. I agree with the majority that the attorney’s lien statute is clear and unambiguous. The statute clearly states that the lien attaches upon money which is due to the client. The money in this case was due and ordered to be paid to the attorney’s client through the clerk of the district court. The Legislature did not provide an exception to the statute by stating that the client must have a “possessory, ownership interest in that money” before the lien can attach, and this Court should not create such an exception by judicial fiat. See Voss v. Ralston, 550 P.2d 481, 485 (Wyo.1976);…