- 28 -
attorney’s fee from petitioners’ gross income here. In Cotnam,
the Alabama statute provided that “attorneys at law shall have
the same right and power over said suits, judgments and decrees,
to enforce their liens, as their clients had or may have for the
amount due thereon to them.” Cotnam v. Commissioner, 263 F.2d
119, 125 n.5 (5th Cir. 1959) (quoting Ala. Code sec. 64 (1940)).
The relevant Wisconsin statute does not recognize the same right
and power in favor of attorneys that was identified in the
Alabama attorney’s lien statute. The Wisconsin statute provides:
Any person having or claiming a right of action,
sounding in tort or for unliquidated damages on
contract, may contract with any attorney to prosecute
the action and give the attorney a lien upon the cause
of action and upon the proceeds or damages derived in
any action brought for the enforcement of the cause of
action, as security for fees in the conduct of the
litigation; when such agreement is made and notice
thereof given to the opposite party or his or her
attorney, no settlement or adjustment of the action may
be valid as against the lien so created, provided the
agreement for fees is fair and reasonable. This
section shall not be construed as changing the law in
respect to champertous contracts. [Wis. Stat. Ann.
sec. 757.36 (West 1981).]
This statute provides for an attorney’s lien upon the cause of
action or upon the proceeds or damages from such cause of action
to secure compensation, but it does not give attorneys the same
rights as their clients over the proceeds of suits, judgments,
and decrees. Accordingly, the Wisconsin statute contains obvious
differences and is distinguishable from the Alabama statute.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011