Ross v. Scannell, 97 Wn.2d 598, 647 P.2d 1004 (1982) and Discipline of VanDerbeek, 153 Wn.2d 64, 101 P.3d 88 (2004) failed to address and conflict with the holdings of Jones v. International Land Corp., 51 Wn. App. 737, 755 P.2d 184 (1988), State v. A.N.W. Seed Corp., 54 Wn. App. 729, 776 P.2d 143 (1989) and Robb v. Kaufman, 81 Wn. App. 182, 913 P.2d 828 (1996). While Divisions I and III confirm an attorney’s authority to file prejudgment attorney liens, Division III has before it an appeal relating to the filing of prejudgment liens offering the court the opportunity to get in line with the other appellate court divisions or go its own way. Attorneys are further cautioned that until the appellate courts “figure it out” Washington’s attorneys will remain wandering in a no man’s land of practice methods confusion and minefield of potential ethical violations that persists between two incompatible rules — the Supreme Court’s judicially created prohibition on the one side — vague, ill-defined and unnecessarily uncertain — and the legislature’s clear and precise language on the other.
- attorney lien
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/mark_baum/3/