- 61 -
attorney’s lien statute gave an attorney an interest in the
client's suit or cause of action, as well as the usual security
interest in any judgment or settlement the client might
eventually win or receive. See Cotnam v. Commissioner, 263 F.2d
at 125; United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Levy, 77 F.2d 972,
975 (5th Cir. 1935) (cited by the majority opinion in Cotnam).
The majority opinion also noted that under the Alabama statute
"Attorneys have the same rights as their clients." Cotnam v.
Commissioner, 263 F.2d at 125. The majority opinion did not
explain in detail the sense in which attorneys' and clients'
rights were the same. However, the cases cited to support this
point make clear the majority opinion was referring to an
attorney's right, under Alabama law, to prosecute his client's
suit to a final judgment, even after the client has settled the
suit with the adverse party. See Denson v. Alabama Fuel & Iron
Co., 73 So. 525 (Ala. 1916); Western Ry. v. Foshee, 62 So. 500
(Ala. 1913).36
When we have not followed Cotnam, we have usually relied on
differences between the attorney’s lien law for the State in
issue and Alabama law. See, e.g., Estate of Gadlow v.
36 We recently followed the decision of the Court of Appeals
in Cotnam v. Commissioner, supra, where Alabama law applied. See
Davis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-248 (Tax Court constrained
to follow Court of Appeals’ Cotnam decision under rule of Golsen
v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th
Cir. 1971)), affd. per curiam F.3d (11th Cir. 2000). See
also Foster v. United States, F. Supp.2d (N.D. Ala. 2000).
Page: Previous 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011