ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0˜µU <M w@‰ 4É Ý ì UDô 0J8 0T‚ 0^Ö 0h4 0rœ 0| 0†Š 0 1u U, 0dAU,¥U>ÑB)DC8 AM{ BÈU*å¥v~´vÓ2 D3 0@8 AOxÆÇ 0D D/Ñ B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(püƒ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman )*D+U,D-U.E/U0U1î2Ó€z!3|x=8 ±ZŠ,Century-WP Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial ›Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ13,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÝ  ÝÑ7€õkXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€$'#;+'h|` à. `€€Lßà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€ATÏJACKSONÌà àà à€€Ï________________________________________________ÌÌò òCHARLES€W.€MCDONALD,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiff„Appellant,€ÌÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelbyÏChancery€No.€104918„1Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.Ï02A01„9508„CH„00164Ìò òJOYCE€L.€COTTON,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellee.Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€CHANCERYÏCOURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€NEALÏSMALL,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌà@ àCharles€W.€McDonald€ofÏMemphisÌà@ àPro€SeÌÌà@ àWilliam€L.€HaganÌà@ àFriedman,€Sissman€andÏHeaton,€P.C.€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€Defendant„AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòVACATED€IN€PART,€AFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€REMANDEDÌÌà@ àó óóóOpinion€filed:€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÌó óÌÌÓ  Ó›Ñ7€õkXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓÓà àThis€appeal€involves€a€suit€by€an€attorney€against€his€formerÏclient€for€attorneyððs€fees€due€pursuant€to€a€contract€and€for€a€statutoryÏattorneyððs€lien.€€The€complaint€of€plaintiff,€Charles€W.€McDonald,€filedÏNovember€22,€1994,€alleges€that€he€is€a€duly€licensed€attorney€in€theÏState€of€Tennessee,€and€that€he€had€a€written€contract€of€employmentÏwith€defendant,€Joyce€LaFaye€Cotton,€to€represent€her€in€connectionÍwith€her€wrongful€termination€by€the€State€of€Tennessee€Department€ofÏYouth€Development.€€The€contract€of€employment€was€attached€asÏExhibit€A€to€the€complaint.€€The€complaint€avers€that€as€a€result€ofÏplaintiffððs€legal€services,€the€defendant€was€reinstated€to€her€positionÏas€a€state€employee€and€awarded€back€pay€from€the€date€of€herÏtermination.€€Plaintiff€avers€that€the€fees€due€for€legal€services€isÏ$14,981.00.€€The€complaint€further€avers€that€the€state€is€about€toÏdisburse€the€back€pay€award,€and€plaintiff€claims€an€attorneyððs€lien€onÏsaid€funds€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€€ðð€23„2„102€and€also€seeks€to€enjoinÏdefendant€from€disposing€of€the€funds€pending€further€orders€of€theÏcourt.ÌÓ  Óà àAlthough€an€answer€had€not€been€filed€by€defendant,€the€case€wasÏoriginally€set€for€trial€on€January€9,€1995,€but€by€consent€order€enteredÏJanuary€5,€1995,€the€case€was€reset€for€trial€to€March€6,€1995,€aÏtemporary€injunction€previously€entered€enjoining€defendant€fromÏdisposing€of€any€of€the€back€pay€funds€was€continued€in€effect€throughÏMarch€6,€1995,€and€plaintiff€was€to€provide€to€defendantððs€counsel€aÏcopy€of€the€signed€attorneyððs€fee€contract€and€an€itemized€billingÏstatement.€€On€January€26,€1995,€defendant€filed€a€ð ðMotion€to€Compel,Ífor€Sanctions,€and€for€Expedited€Discovery,ðð€in€which€she€alleges€thatÏplaintiff€has€failed€to€furnish€the€copy€of€the€contract€and€the€itemizedÏbilling€statement.€€On€January€27,€1995,€defendant€filed€a€first€set€ofÏinterrogatories€to€plaintiff€with€the€court€and€also€filed€a€first€requestÏfor€production€of€documents.Ìà àPlaintiffððs€answers€to€interrogatories€and€responses€to€requestÏfor€production€were€filed€on€February€13,€1995,€and€a€consent€orderÏwas€entered€February€14,€1995,€on€defendantððs€ð ðMotion€to€Compel,€forÏSanctions,€and€for€Expedited€Recovery.ðð€€The€order€provides€in€pertinentÏpart:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€€That€the€parties€hereto€acknowledge€hand„delivery€by€Plaintiff€to€Defendantððs€counsel€onÏFebruary€1,€1995,€at€3:28€p.m.€the€itemizedÏbilling€statement€reflecting€the€services€allegedÏby€Plaintiff€as€being€performed€on€behalf€of€theÏDefendant€òòIn€the€matter€of:€Department€of€YouthÏDevelopment€v.€Joyce€LaFaye€Cottonóó,€before€theÏTennessee€Civil€Service€Commission,€Docket€No.Ï26:15„23„08153,€and€the€Defendantððs€instantÏMotion€shall€not€be€pursued€as€to€allegations€ofÏthis€issue.Ì€Ìà8 àà8 à2.€€By€agreement,€the€Plaintiff€shall€provide€toÏcounsel€for€Defendant€all€responses€toÏoutstanding€discovery€requests€no€later€thanÏFebruary€13,€1995,€thereby€allowing€the€partiesÍto€proceed€with€the€hearing€set€in€this€cause€onÏMarch€6,€1995,€at€10:00€a.m.€€In€the€eventÏPlaintiff€fails€to€timely€provide€all€suchÏdiscovery€responses€to€Defendantððs€counsel€byÏFebruary€13,€1995,€or€in€the€event€DefendantððsÏcounsel€deems€such€responses€to€be€incompleteÏas€submitted€by€Plaintiff,€the€hearing€date€ofÏMarch€6,€1995,€shall€be€continued€to€a€later€date.€ÏFurther,€in€the€event€Plaintiff€does€timelyÏprovide€all€discovery€responses€to€DefendantððsÏcounsel€by€February€13,€1995,€DefendantððsÏrequest€for€the€imposition€of€sanctions€in€saidÏMotion€to€Compel€shall€be€stricken.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€case€apparently€was€reset€for€trial€to€April€26,€1995,€and€onÏApril€21,€1995,€defendant€filed€an€answer€to€the€complaint.€€TheÏanswer€admits€that€she€entered€into€a€written€contract€with€theÏplaintiff.€€She€further€admits€that€she€was€reinstated€to€her€position€asÏa€state€employee€and€awarded€some€back€pay€but€denies€that€thisÏresulted€from€plaintiffððs€legal€services.€€The€answer€furtherÏaffirmatively€avers€that€the€court€is€without€subject€matterÏjurisdiction€to€consider€the€plaintiffððs€suit€based€on€the€attorneyððs€lienÏstatute.Ìà àThe€record€contains€a€transcript€of€the€hearing€held€April€26,Ï1995.€€The€first€part€of€the€transcript€contains€arguments€of€counsel€inÏregard€to€the€affirmative€defense,€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdictionÍto€hear€the€claim€for€an€attorneyððs€lien.€€The€court€ruled€from€the€benchÏthat€the€court€did€not€have€subject€matter€jurisdiction,€because€theÏproceeding€before€the€administrative€body€was€not€a€proceeding€beforeÏa€court€of€record€and€therefore€there€could€be€no€attorneyððs€lien.€€TheÏremainder€of€the€transcript€consists€of€colloquy€between€McDonald,Ïacting€pro€se,€the€chancellor,€and€counsel€for€the€defendant.€€McDonald,Ïin€addressing€the€court,€indicated€that€he€intended€to€introduce€intoÏevidence€some€letters€and€other€items€to€substantiate€his€claim€forÏattorneyððs€fees€at€which€time€defendantððs€attorney€stated€that€theyÏobjected€to€the€introduction€of€such€evidence€because€items€were€notÏfurnished€in€response€to€their€requests€for€production€of€documents.€ÏAfter€much€discussion€among€the€lawyers€and€the€chancellor,€theÏchancellor€concluded€that€McDonald€had€failed€to€comply€with€theÏdiscovery€requests€and€therefore€could€not€produce€the€proffered€itemsÏinto€evidence.€€Although€McDonald€suggested€that€the€chancellor€viewÏthe€items,€he€did€not€in€specific€language€seek€to€make€an€offer€ofÏproof€for€the€record.€€Moreover,€McDonald€was€ready€to€testify,€but€theÏchancellor€indicated€that€the€case€would€be€dismissed€and€no€proof€wasÏever€taken€from€anyone€including€the€plaintiff.€€The€chancellor€ruledÍthat€there€was€not€sufficient€evidence€to€prove€the€amount€of€his€fees.€€Ìà àOn€May€3,€1995,€the€court€entered€judgment€for€defendant€on€aÏfinding€that€the€evidence€ð ðdoes€not€preponderate€in€favor€of€theÏcontentions€of€the€Plaintiff,ðð€and€that€the€court€lacks€subject€matterÏjurisdiction€ð ðto€entertain€the€Attorney€Lien€allegations€contained€inÏthis€Complaint.ðð€€On€the€same€day€the€judgment€was€entered,€McDonaldÏfiled€a€motion€for€leave€to€file€an€amended€and€supplemental€complaintÏto€seek€recovery€alternatively€for€òòquantum€meruitóó.€€On€May€19,€1995,Ïplaintiff€filed€a€motion€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment€or€for€a€newÏtrial.€€Both€motions€were€denied,€and€McDonald€has€appealed€andÏpresents€two€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI.€Whether€the€Chancery€Court€abused€its€judicialÏdiscretion€when€it€refused€to€consider,€as€aÏsanction€for€resolving€a€dispute€over€discovery,Ïany€of€œplaintiff›€attorneyððs€proof€in€a€cause€ofÏaction€for€breach€of€employment€contract.ÌÌà8 àà8 àII.€€Whether€the€Chancery€Court€erred€when€itÏheld€that€it€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdictionÏto€entertain€plaintiff€attorneyððs€lien€becauseÏT.C.A.€€ðð€23„2„102€[Attorney€Lien€on€Right€ofÏAction]€did€not€extend€to€contested€casesÏconducted€before€the€Tennessee€Civil€ServiceÏCommission.ÌÌÓÓà àDefendant„appellee,€Cotton,€presents€two€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI.€€Whether€the€Appellant€made€a€proper€offer€ofÏproof€in€order€to€preserve€his€objection€to€theÏTrial€Courtððs€ruling€on€the€exclusion€of€evidence,Ïwhich€Appellant€attempted€to€introduce€inÏsupport€of€his€claims€for€relief?Ìà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àII.€€Whether€the€appeal€of€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€by€the€Appellant€is€a€frivolous€appeal?ÌÌÓÓÔ€ Ôà àÔ€ÔWe€will€first€address€appellantððs€second€issue€regarding€theÏsubject€matter€jurisdiction€of€the€chancery€court€to€entertain€theÏappellantððs€claim€for€an€attorneyððs€lien€in€the€underlying€representationÏof€Cotton.€€The€appellant€contends€that€the€chancellor€should€haveÏenforced€his€attorneyððs€lien€over€the€back€pay€which€was€awarded€toÏCotton€by€the€Administrative€Law€Judge€in€the€Civil€ServiceÏCommission€proceeding.€€The€appellee,€on€the€other€hand,€contends€thatÏthe€chancellor€correctly€concluded€that€T.C.A.€ðð€Ô€ Ô23„2„102€Ô€Ôdid€notÏprovide€McDonald€an€attorneyððs€lien€on€the€back€pay€award,€becauseÏT.C.A.€ðð€Ô€ Ô23„2„102Ô€Ô€only€creates€an€attorneyððs€lien€over€rights€of€actionÏin€courts€of€record.€€The€appellee€argues€that€since€the€Tennessee€CivilÏService€Commission€is€not€a€court€of€record,€the€chancellor€correctlyÏheld€that€no€attorneyððs€lien€attached€to€Cottonððs€award€of€back€pay.€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€23„2„102€provides:ÌÓÓò òà8 àà8 àLien€on€right€of€actionó ó.„„Attorneys€andÏsolicitors€of€record€who€begin€a€suit€shall€haveÏa€lien€upon€the€plaintiffððs€or€complainantððs€rightÏof€action€from€the€date€of€the€filing€of€the€suit.€Ô€ ÔÌÌÓÓÔ€Ôà àWe€need€not€reach€the€partiesðð€arguments€with€respect€to€whetherÏT.C.A.€Ô€ Ôðð€23„2„102€Ô€Ôextends€to€actions€in€courts€not€of€record,€because€itÏis€clear€that€McDonald€has€no€attorneyððs€lien€because€the€final€order€ofÏthe€Civil€Service€Commission€made€no€provision€for€an€attorneyððs€lien.ÏPlaintiff€is€attempting€to€establish€the€lien€for€services€rendered€in€aÏprevious€case.€€In€order€for€an€attorney€to€have€a€lien€upon€the€clientððsÏrecovery,€the€order€or€judgment€in€the€case€in€which€the€services€wereÏrendered€must€expressly€provide€for€the€lien.€€ð ðIn€order€for€a€solicitorÏto€have€the€benefit€of€his€lien,€we€think€it€necessary€that€it€should€beÏset€up€in€the€decree€in€which€the€services€are€rendered;€otherwiseÏthere€would€be€no€notice€to€the€public€or€a€subsequent€purchaser.ðð€Ïò òòòChumbley€v.€Thomasóóó ó,€184€Tenn.€258,€261,€198€S.W.2d€551,€552Ï(1947).€€In€ò òòòCobb€v.€Hallmark€Studios,€Incóó.ó ó,€704€S.W.2d€724€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1985)€this€Court€stated:€€€€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€statute€simply€gives€an€attorney€a€lienÏpending€the€litigation€on€anything€involved,€i.e.,Ïland€or€money€paid€in€Court.€€The€attorney€mayÏcontinue€the€lien€after€judgment€by€so€providingÍin€the€order€of€the€judgment.€€Failure€to€do€soÏresults€in€the€loss€of€the€lien.ÌÌòòò òÓÓIdó óóó.€at€725.€€The€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€plaintiffððs€claim€forÏattorneyððs€lien€was€basedÌon€its€determination€that€the€underlying€action€was€not€filed€in€a€courtÏof€record€and,€therefore,€not€within€the€purview€of€the€statute.€€TheÏtrial€court€correctly€dismissed€that€part€of€the€complaint€claiming€anÏattorneyððs€lien,€but€for€the€wrong€reason.€€Where€a€trial€court€rulesÏcorrectly€but€upon€an€erroneous€reason,€the€appellate€court€will€sustainÏthe€ruling€upon€what€it€conceives€œto€be€the›€correct€theory.€€ò òòòDuck€v.ÏHowelló óóó,€729€S.W.2d€110,€113€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€ÌÔ€ Ôà àÔ€ÔWe€next€address€the€appellantððs€issue€relating€to€the€discoveryÏsanctions€imposed€by€the€chancellor.€€As€stated€above,€the€chancellorÏrefused€to€allow€McDonald€to€introduce€letters€from€McDonald€toÏCotton,€a€notebook€€containing€notes€on€Cottonððs€case,€some€caseÏresearch,€and€other€material€supporting€McDonaldððs€claim€for€breach€ofÏcontract€damages.€€McDonald€contended€at€trial€that€he€withheld€atÏleast€part€of€these€items€from€discovery,€because€he€believed€them€toÏbe€attorney€work€product.Ô€ Ô€Ô€ÔThe€chancellor€refused€to€allow€McDonald€toÍintroduce€these€items€as€a€sanction€for€McDonaldððs€failure€to€provideÏthe€items€to€opposing€counsel€during€discovery.€The€chancellor€thenÏdismissed€McDonaldððs€lawsuit€based€on€lack€of€sufficient€proof.€Ìà àThe€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€in€its€enforcement€ofÏdiscovery€rules€provided€for€in€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€Ïò òòòSee€Strickland€v.€Stricklandó óóó,€618€S.W.2d€496€(Tenn.€App.€1981).€€InÏò òòòStricklandó óóó,€a€party€ð ðknowingly€and€deliberately€refused€to€reveal€theÏname€of€a€person€who€had€knowledge€of€discoverable€matter€and€thenÏpresented€that€person€as€a€witness€at€the€trial.ðð€€ò òòòIdó óóó.€at€501.€€The€trialÏcourt€did€not€allow€the€witness€to€testify.€€On€appeal,€this€Court,€notingÏthat€ordinarily€sanctions€can€be€applied€under€Rule€37€only€for€a€failureÏto€comply€with€a€court€order,€affirmed€the€trial€court.€€The€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€What€recourse€then€is€available€whereÏTennessee€rule€26.02(1)€has€been€violated€asÏherein€noted?€€To€ask€the€question€is€to€suggestÏthe€answer€œ„„›€the€only€source€of€correctiveÏaction€lies€within€the€inherent€power€of€theÏtrial€judge.€€Rule€26.02(1)€is€designed€for€theÏdiscovery€of€facts€which€will€enable€litigants€toÏprepare€for€trial€free€from€the€element€ofÏsurprise,€which,€prior€to€the€adoption€of€theÏrules,€frequently€led€to€a€result€based€more€uponÏthe€legal€maneuvering€of€counsel€than€upon€theÏmerits€of€the€case.€œ›€When€the€rules€do€notÏprovide€a€sanction€for€those€violations€whichÍdefeat€the€purpose€of€rule€26.02(1),€it€isÏmandatory€that€the€trial€judge€have€theÏauthority€to€take€such€action€as€necessary€toÏachieve€that€purpose.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€The€trial€court€must€have€wide€discretion€inÏthese€matters.€ò òòò€óóó óThe€fact€that€the€court€canÏimpose€the€sanction€of€not€permitting€theÏunnamed€witness€to€testify,€does€not€mean€thatÏit€must€do€so.€€Generally,€where€a€party€has€notÏgiven€the€name€of€a€person€with€knowledge€ofÏdiscoverable€matter,€the€court€should€considerÏthe€explanation€given€for€the€failure€to€name€theÏwitness,€the€importance€of€the€testimony€of€theÏwitness,€the€need€for€time€to€prepare€to€meetÏthe€testimony,€and€the€possibility€of€aÏcontinuance.€€In€the€light€of€these€considerationsÏthe€court€may€permit€the€witness€to€testify,€orÏit€may€exclude€the€testimony,€or€it€may€grant€aÏcontinuance€so€that€the€other€side€may€taken€theÏdeposition€of€the€witness€or€otherwise€prepareÏto€meet€the€testimony.€€œÌÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€501€(citations€omitted).Ì›ÌÓÓà àFrom€the€comments€in€the€record,€it€is€apparent€that€plaintiffÏwas€mistaken€in€his€decision€to€withhold€some€of€the€material.€ÏHowever,€it€also€appears€that€plaintiff€was€not€trying€to€ð ðsandbagððÏdefendant€but€was€acting€in€good€faith.€€The€record€reveals€thatÏabsolutely€no€proof€was€introduced,€and€in€reading€the€entireÏtranscript,€it€seems€that€this€came€about€by€a€misunderstanding€on€theÍpart€of€the€plaintiff€that€he€was€prevented€from€testifying€by€theÏchancellor.€€While€we€do€not€feel€this€is€the€case,€the€colloquy€betweenÏthe€parties€and€the€chancellor€became€somewhat€confused€and€couldÏjustifiably€lead€plaintiff€to€such€a€conclusion.€€The€court€should€haveÏconsidered€plaintiffððs€proof€without€the€excluded€material,€and€then€ifÏplaintiff€did€not€carry€the€burden€of€proof,€judgment€for€the€defendantÏwould€have€been€properly€entered.Ìà àConsidering€all€of€the€circumstances€reflected€in€the€transcript,Ïan€evidentiary€hearing€should€have€been€held€and€plaintiff€allowed€toÏtestify€and€put€on€any€other€proof€properly€admissible.€€Ìà àDefendant€presents€an€issue€regarding€plaintiffððs€failure€to€makeÏan€offer€of€proof€on€the€excluded€items€of€evidence€and€asserts€thatÏsince€he€failed€to€make€an€offer€of€proof,€this€Court€may€not€review€theÏpropriety€of€the€exclusion€of€the€evidence.€€Normally,€when€evidence€isÏexcluded,€there€must€be€an€offer€of€proof.€€Tenn.R.Evid.€103(a)(2).€ÏHowever,€an€offer€of€proof€is€not€necessary€when€a€trial€judge€excludesÏð ðan€entire€line€of€competent€evidence,€or€refuses€to€hear€anÏexamination€thereon.ðð€€ò òòòCity€of€Nashville€v.€Drakeó ó,€óó281€S.W.2d€681,Ï684€(Tenn.€1955).€€It€appears€from€the€record€in€this€case€that€an€entireÍline€of€evidence€was€excluded€concerning€the€back„up€material€toÏsupport€the€reasonableness€of€the€attorneyððs€fees€sought.Ìà àIn€any€event,€plaintiffððs€complaint€states€a€cause€of€action€forÏbreach€of€his€contract€for€attorneyððs€fees,€and€he€should€have€anÏevidentiary€hearing€to€determine€if€he€can€prove€his€case.€€PlaintiffððsÏcomplaint€does€not€state€a€cause€of€action€for€an€attorneyððs€lien,€andÏthe€trial€court€correctly€dismissed€that€claim.Ìà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€dismissingÏplaintiffððs€complaint€seeking€damages€for€breach€of€contract€forÏattorneyððs€fees€is€vacated,€and€the€judgment€in€all€other€respects€isÏaffirmed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€the€appeal€areÏassessed€one„half€to€plaintiff€and€one„half€to€defendant.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌÌó ó_________________________________Ìò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌ_________________________________Ìò òHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEó ó̜ԀÔÔ€Ô