- 7 -
attorney a lien to secure his or her compensation, the Alaska
provision, unlike the Alabama provision, does not give attorneys
the same right and power over suits, judgments, and decrees as
their clients had or may have. In contrast to a client subject
to the Alabama provision, a client subject to the Alaska
provision retains all proprietary rights in his or her claim,
subject to a statutory lien held by the attorney on any proceeds
from the claim. See, e.g., Hagans, Brown & Gibbs v. First Natl.
Bank, 783 P.2d 1164, 1168 (Alaska 1989) ("the claim belongs to
the client and not to the attorney; the client has a right to
compromise or even abandon his claim if he sees fit to do so");
see also Phillips v. Jones, 355 P.2d 166, 171 (Alaska 1960)
(intent of Alaska attorney lien provision is to give attorneys
security for their efforts through a lien on the subject of the
action). The Alaska provision also subordinates an attorney's
lien "to the rights existing between the parties to the action or
proceeding", whereas the lien of an attorney under the Alabama
provision is "superior to all liens but tax liens". In fact, the
Alaska provision is similar to provisions of the Nebraska and
South Dakota Codes, which we held in Petersen v. Commissioner,
38 T.C. 137, 151-152 (1962), were distinguishable from the
provisions of the Alabama Code considered by the Court of Appeals
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011