WPC2: yBx@~vzL/~:\QK3˹Oo:7V/;쀿3NxQ@) <*q8F%Io!!q${nńw1iįkyJdcç%ҬU GQLaT\պ(a<Ԓb5-7QhEDgC`ws|/\punkogȈK\zNۏWXhK}v"kI^Cg{Mm/EL E:<@y7dZ[x#رZpN{!ZNPVPgܑvЖc<'ETG;LyD;)L]X a4ogGp\~.݂"A? zy_4FG@z-/T3O9&DDf.}Dt7pTdK` W# UN % 04! 0 Ub$ N, . w6  0D  ^ ew@q4 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0b 0A 0 0 0 0 0 0i 0< 0  0 0 0 0b! 0=" 0# 0# 0$ 0% 0W&U > 'N^')U+uW-0e3 1m&5UN5 AQ526 0D6 72<7 0cn7 0D7 0D8 D/Y8 B88 D39U:9999999999999999999 B:HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh("  Z6Times New Roman Regular( U$  ((2L$ U!   XXO_X   `   0  - - XG:\CLERKS\COAOPN\STARKSSL.OPNning.opnmq  0  K$  XXOX @ @ `   6    _SeeActofApr.12,1899,ch.243,1,1899Tenn.Pub.Acts558,codifiedatTenn.Code  Ann.232102(1994).TheTennesseeSupremeCourtupheldtheconstitutionalityofthisstatuteinRailroadv.Wells,104Tenn.706,712,59S.W.1041,1043(1900).(#$  0    K$  X7X#X @ @ `   5    _SeeStarksv.Durham,RobertsonCir.No.8740.TheBartDurhamLawOfficeslaterfiled  ananswerdenyingthatithadcommittedlegalmalpracticeandalsofiledathirdpartycontributionandindemnityclaimagainstMs._Starks_newlawyerassertingthathehadnegligentlyfailedtopursueanappealfromtheJanuary1997summaryjudgmentdismissingTimFarmerandhisparentsasdefendants.Thetrialcourtgrantedasummaryjudgmentdismissingthethirdpartyclaim,andthisdecisioniscurrentlythesubjectofaseparateappealrecentlyarguedbeforeapanelfromtheEasternSectionofthisCourt.SeeStarksv.Durham,No.01A019808CV00453.gl'c EEDeӀy&-:i+003|x U2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  \  `&Times New Roman D K$  XXOX @ @ `   2    _Whilethejurywasdeliberatingontheamountofthepunitivedamageaward,Mr.Browning  andhisparentsofferedtosettlethecasefor$110,00!$100,000tobepaidbyMr.Brownings  insurancecompanyand$10,000tobepaidbyMr.Browningsparents.ThelawyerrepresentingMs.Starksdidnotaccepttheofferuntilafterthetrialhadconcluded.  K$  XXOX @ @ `   3    _WhilethecertificateofserviceonthesemotionsindicatesthatcopiesweremailedtoMs.  StarksonAugust29,1997,therecordcontainsnoindicationthatMs.StarkswaspresentattheSeptember4,1997hearing.  K$  XXOX @ @ `   4    _ThemalpracticeclaimwasbasedonallegationsthattheBartDurhamLawOfficesinduced  Ms.Starkstoacceptthe$110,000settlementofferbytellingherthatthe$281,000judgmentagainstMr.Browningwasdischargeableinbankruptcywhenitshouldhaveknownthatthejudgmentwasnotdischargeable. k K$  XXOX @ @ `   5    _SeeStarksv.Durham,RobertsonCir.No.8740.TheBartDurhamLawOfficeslaterfiled  ananswerdenyingthatithadcommittedlegalmalpracticeandalsofiledathirdpartycontributionandindemnityclaimagainstMs.StarksnewlawyerassertingthathehadnegligentlyfailedtopursueanappealfromtheJanuary1997summaryjudgmentdismissingTimFarmerandhisparentsasdefendants.Thetrialcourtgrantedasummaryjudgmentdismissingthethirdpartyclaim,andthisdecisioniscurrentlythesubjectofaseparateappealrecentlyarguedbeforeapanelfromtheEasternSectionofthisCourt.SeeStarksv.Durham,No.01A019808CV00453.  L$  XXO_X @ @ `   1    _AtthesametimethetrialcourtgrantedtheFarmersmotionforsummaryjudgment,it  deniedtheBrowningsmotionforsummaryjudgmentwithregardtoMs._Starks_familypurposeclaim.ThiscourtdeniedtheBrowningsTenn.R.App.P.10applicationforanextraordinaryappealfromthesedecisions.SeeStarksv.Browning,No.01A019704CV00151(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.11,  1997).  K$  XXOX @ @ `   7    _Theattorneymayalsoseektoenforcehisorhercontractualrighttoafeethrougha  counterclaimfiledinaseparateproceedingcommencedbytheclient.SeeStatev.Edgefield&  KentuckyR.R.,63Tenn.at97.<#\e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)("  Z6Times New Roman Regular9:=>?C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  6i)(;$2\e  0  .3  0  (3$ !  ($$   1  @@' dxdP Pd :"  C C  C   Ad FILEDCXXX C  August3,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh VVVV'dxd,@AZ"Arial Regular d U!   _XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  7udd7  \d r8AB<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxPX  r@ DINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEt8AB>.*jxO` `@Eg` 8ttxPM O t@)DATNASHVILLE 'v\dԈ h STELLAL.STARKS, h     )    `     h     ) ` Plaintiff/Appellant,    )  >  `     h     ) p  T  VS. `     h     ) p  j   `     h     )0 p RobertsonCircuit0 p%p% SAMUELJ.BROWNING,    ) p /3'vNo.7342#'v/3L# F  JOSEPHF.BROWNING,and    )0 p l p%p% MARYBROWNING,0 h 0h%h%0%%)0p%%/3'vAppealNo.#'v/3]# p%p%  `     h     )0 p /3'v01A019801CV00038#'v/3#p%p%  ` Defendants,0   h     )0p%%p%p%  `     h     )BARTDURHAMINJURYAND  ) J ACCIDENTLAWOFFICES,0  0%%)`%%  `     h     ) ` Appellee.0  0h%%0h%h%0%%)<%% @DAPPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORROBERTSONCOUNTY@#D@@#DATSPRINGFIELD,TENNESSEE@ DTHEHONORABLEJOHNH.GASAWAY,III,JUDGE0 `  ForStellaL.Starks:0h` %` %0h%h%0%%0p%%ForBartDurhamInjury&Accident D(#  LawOffices:Z)$!p%p% SteveR.DarnellBateman,Bateman&Darnell     p RobertL.Whitaker +&# Clarksville,Tennessee h 0     p Nashville,Tennessee,'$%% @O O D\d'v AFFIRMEDINPART;REVERSEDINPART; 64/+ @hh)DANDREMANDED #'v\df #Ԉ 50,  `     h      p WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  t<72  \d'v  @)DOPINION 'v\dԈ   ` Thisappealinvolvesalawfirmseffortstoenforceastatutoryattorneyslienontheproceedsofapostverdictpersonalinjurysettlement.Afterthelawfirmwithdrewfromrepresentingtheplaintiffbecauseofadisputearisingfromthesettlement,theCircuitCourtforRobertsonCounty,thecourtwheretheunderlyingpersonalinjuryactionhadbeentried,grantedthelawfirmsmotionforalienonthesettlementproceedsforitsfeeandcostsadvancedontheplaintiffsbehalf.Thereafter,thetrialcourtgrantedthelawfirmsmotiontoexecuteonthelienanddirectedtheplaintifftopayherformerlawfirm$51,091.99.Onthisappeal,theplaintiffassertsthatthetrialcourterredbydirectinghertopayherformerlawfirmbecausethelienwasnotproperlyperfectedandbecausetheprocedurefollowedbythetrialcourtdidnotpermithertoassertheravailableclaimsanddefensesagainstherformerlawfirm.Whilewehavedeterminedthatthelawfirmproperlyperfecteditslien,wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnothavetheauthoritytoadjudicatethefeedisputebetweenthelawfirmanditsformerclient.Accordingly,wereversetheportionofthetrialcourtsordergrantingthemotionforexecutionoftheattorneyslien.@.D I.  $n&  ` OnOctober8,1994,StellaStarkswaswaitingtomakealeftturnattheintersectionofMemorialBoulevardandPawneeDriveinSpringfieldwhenshewasstruckheadonbyapickuptruckdrivenbySamuelBrowning.Mr.Browning,aminor,wasintoxicatedatthetimebecausehehadconsumedfourorfivebeersatacookoutatTimFarmershome.Ms.StarksretainedtheBartDurhamInjuryandAccidentLawOffices( BartDurhamLawOffices)torepresentheronthebasisofaonethirdcontingencyfeeplusreimbursementofexpenses.InApril1995,theBartDurhamLawOfficesfiledsuitintheCircuitCourtforRobertsonCountyagainstbothMr.BrowningandhisparentswhowereregisteredcoownersofMr.Browningspickuptruck.Later,inFebruary1996,theBartDurhamLawOfficesfiledan amendedcomplaintnamingTimFarmerandhisparentsasadditionaldefendants. 72>  ` InJanuary1997,thetrialcourtgrantedMr.Farmersandhisparentsmotionforsummaryjudgmentanddismissedthemfromthecase.4  #  1      ׀InAugust1997, Q  followingathreedaytrial,ajuryreturnedaverdictagainstMr.Browningalonefor$281,000incompensatorydamagesandfor$500inpunitivedamages.Onthesamedaythejuryreturneditsverdict,Ms.StarksauthorizedtheBartDurhamLawOfficestoacceptapostverdictsettlementofferof$110,000.0@  #  2      ׀Twentyminuteslatershe  4  attemptedtowithdrawheracceptance;however,theBartDurhamLawOfficeshadalreadycommunicatedheracceptancetoopposingcounsel.Thus,Ms.Starkslawyertoldherthatherearlieracceptancehadmadethesettlementa donedeal.Nevertheless,onthedayfollowingtheverdict,Ms.BrowningtalkedwithBartDurhampersonallybytelephoneandrescindedheracceptanceoftheofferandretractedthefirmsauthoritytosettlethesuitonherbehalf. ` OnSeptember4,1997,thetrialcourtenteredajudgmentorderembodyingthejurysverdictagainstMr.Browning.Onthesameday,theBartDurhamLawOfficesmovedtowithdrawascounselforMs.Starksandtoassertastatutoryattorneyslienonthesettlementproceeds.Italsofileda motionseekingadeclaratoryjudgmentconcerningthevalidityofthesettlementagreement.Thesemotionswereheardonthesamedaytheywerefiled.1   #  3      ׀Thereafter,onOctober7,1997,thetrialcourtentered 8"$ anorderpermittingtheBartDurhamLawOfficestowithdrawasMs.StarkscounselanddeclaringthattheBartDurhamLawOfficeshada$51,091.99lien onanyrecovery,whetherbysettlement,verdict,levy,garnishment,executionorotherwise,thatPlaintiffreceivesinthismatteroranyotheractionpredicatedonthesamecause.  l*%.  ` Ms.StarksretainedanewlawyerfollowingtheSeptember4,1997hearing. ThenewlawyerinformedtheBartDurhamLawOfficesthathebelievedthatitsrepresentationofMs.Starksfellbelowthestandardofcarereasonablyexpectedofcompetentattorneys.2  #  4      ׀HealsoinformedtheBartDurhamLawOfficesthathewas   holding$114,157.75insettlementchecksandsuggestedthatanamountequaltotheamountbeingclaimedbytheBartDurhamLawOfficesbeheldinescrowpendingtheresolutionofthemalpracticeclaims.Thereafter,onNovember13,1997,Ms.StarksfiledamalpracticeactionintheCircuitCourtforRobertsonCountyagainsttheBartDurhamLawOfficesandtheindividuallawyerwhohadrepresentedherattrial.3P P  #  5       t  ` OnNovember17,1997,theBartDurhamLawOfficesfileda motionseeking executionoftheOctober7,1997order.Oneweeklater,Ms.StarksrequestedthetrialcourttofindthatitsOctober7,1997orderwas ineffective.Followingahearing,thetrialcourtenteredtwoordersonDecember18,1997.ThefirstorderdeniedMs.StarksmotiontosetasideitsOctober7,1997order,andthesecondordergrantedtheBartDurhamLawOfficesmotionforexecutionoftheOctober7,1997order.Thesecondorderalsostated,inpart,that theamountofFiftyOneThousandNinetyOneand99/100Dollars($51,091.99)whichrepresentsBartDurhamInjury&AccidentLawOfficescourtapprovedfeesandexpensesbedepositedwiththeClerkoftheCourtbySteveDarnell,Esquireforthwith. ` Ms.StarkshasappealedfromtheorderdirectinghertopaytheBartDurhamLawOffices$51,091.99.Afterfilingitsbriefwiththiscourt,theBartDurhamLaw OfficesfiledamotionpursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.19(b)and(e)tobeaddedasan ,`'0 appelleeinthiscasesinceitwasarealpartyininterestwithregardtothedisputed$51,091.99.ThiscourtgrantedthemotiononSeptember16,1998. @.D II.     ` Ms.StarksassertsthattherearetworeasonstheorderdirectinghertopaytheBartDurhamLawOffices$51.091.99cannotstand.First,sheinsiststhattheOctober7,1997ordercouldnothavecreatedavalidattorneyslienfortheBartDurhamLawOfficesbecausethelienisnotnotedintheSeptember4,1997judgmentagainstMr.Browning.Second,shearguesthatthetrialcourtshouldnothaveproceededtoadjudicatetheBartDurhamLawOfficesrighttorecoverafeefromher.@.D A.  `  ` Therelationshipbetweenaclientandanattorneyisessentiallycontractual.See  Alexanderv.Inman,974S.W.2d689,694(Tenn.1998);InreEllis,822S.W.2d602, L 607(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).Initsmostbasicterms,thiscontractinvolvestheexchangeofcompetentlegalservicesinreturnforanagreementtopayareasonablefee.Theattorneyisobligatedtoexercisetheutmostgoodfaithinthedischargeofhisorherdutiestorepresenttheclient.SeeCrawfordv.Logan,656S.W.2d360,364 #,& (Tenn.1983);Fitchv.MidlandBank&TrustCo.,737S.W.2d785,789(Tenn.Ct. % ( App.1987).Iftheattorneydischargeshisorherdutiesappropriately,heorsheisentitledtothereasonable,agreeduponcompensationwithoutregardtotheactualbenefittheservicesmighthavebeentotheclient.SeeSpoffordv.Rose,145Tenn. l*%. 583,611,237S.W.68,76(1922);Billsv.Polk,72Tenn.494,496(1880);Adamsv. ,`'0 Mellen,618S.W.2d485,488(Tenn.Ct.App.1981). -)2  ` Thecourtsmaydeclinetoenforceanattorneysfeecontractonly(1)whentheattorneydidnotnegotiatethecontractingoodfaith,seeAlexanderv.Inman,974 2-8 S.W.2dat69394,(2)whenthecontractprovidesforanunreasonablefee,seeWhite D4/: v.McBride,937S.W.2d796,80001(Tenn.1996),or(3)whentheattorneyhas 581< otherwisebreachedhisorherfiduciaryobligationstotheclientandthisbreachhas prejudicedtheclientsinterests.SeeCrawfordv.Logan,656S.W.2dat365; 094@ Alexanderv.Inman,903S.W.2d686,694(Tenn.Ct.App.1995);Colemanv.Moody,  52Tenn.App.138,155,372S.W.2d306,311314(1963).  ` Mostjurisdictionsrecognizesomeformofattorneyslientosecurealawyersclaimforfeesshouldaclientfailtocompensatethelawyerfortheservicesrendered.SeeCharlesW.Wolfram,ModernLegalEthics9.6.3,at558(1986).Whilea  4  lawyersrighttocompensationremainsbasedoncontract,attorneysliensprovidesecurityforthesecontractualrights.SeeFeissnerv.PrinceGeorgesCounty,384 ,|  A.2d742,746(Md.1978);Sarmonv.Goldwater,TaberandHill,396P.2d847,849   (Nev.1964). t  ` Twotypesofattorneysliensexisttodayeitherbythecommonlaworbystatute.Thefirsttypeoflienisaretaininglien.Aretaininglienisapossessorylien, ` seeAndrewHall&Assocs.v.Ghanem,679So.2d60,61(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996); T InreCoronetIns.Co.,698N.E.2d598,601(Ill.App.Ct.1998);Panarellov.  Panarello,585A.2d428,430(N.J.Super.Ct.Ch.Div.1990),thatpermitsalawyer L toretainaclientsbooks,papers,securities,ormoneycomingintohisorherpossessionduringthecourseoftherepresentationuntiltheattorneyandclienthavesettledtheirfeedisputeoruntiltheclienthasotherwisepostedappropriatesecurityfortheoutstandingfee.SeeMcDonald,Shea&Co.v.Railroad,93Tenn.281,293, #,& 24S.W.252,25556(1893);Brown&Reidv.Bigley,3Tenn.Ch.(Cooper)618,621 % ( (1878);Huntv.McClanahan,48Tenn.(1Heisk.)503,50607(1870);seealsoHoke $'t"* v.Ortiz,632N.E.2d861,865(N.Y.1994).Alawyerwitharetaininglienhasno ($, independentrightofactionagainsttheclientthatcanbeforeclosedorotherwiseexecutedupon.SeeMcDonald,Shea&Co.v.Railroad,93Tenn.at293,24S.W. ,`'0 at255256;Brown&Reidv.Bigley,3Tenn.Ch.at621;seealsoBrauerv.Hotel -)2 Assocs,Inc.,192A.2d831,833(N.J.1963). X/*4 Ѐ 0L,6  ` Thesecondtypeoflien,acharginglien,isbasedonalawyer'sequitableright 2-8 tohavethefeesandcostsdueforthelawyersservicesinaparticularactionsecuredbythejudgmentorrecoveryinthataction.SeeSouthernv.Beeler,183Tenn.272, 581< 30102,195S.W.2d857,870(1946);Keithv.Fitzhugh,83Tenn.49,50(1885);see 72> alsoBennettv.Weitz,559N.W.2d354,355(Mich.Ct.App.1997);Mackv.Moore, 094@ 418S.E.2d685,688(N.C.Ct.App.1992);Shafferv.CharlestonAreaMed.Ctr.,Inc., :$6B 485S.E.2d12,2021(W.Va.1997).Unlikearetaininglien,acharginglienisnotlimitedtothepropertyintheattorneyspossession.SeeBrauerv.HotelAssocs.,Inc., T 192A.2dat834.Itattachestoanyproceedsflowingfromajudgment,aslongasthelawyerworkedtosecurethatjudgmentfortheclient.SeeButlerv.GMAC,203Tenn.   366,37071,313S.W.2d260,262(1958);seealsoCrolleyv.OHareIntlBank,346 @  N.W.2d156,159(Minn.1984).  4   `  ` Bothretainingandcharginglienrightsmaybewaivedorforfeitedinavarietyofways.Theymaybelostifalawyerfailstorepresenthisorherclientsinterestsfaithfully,honestly,andconsistentlyorfailstodischargehisorherdutieswiththeutmostfaith.SeeFirstNatlBankofCincinnativ.Pepper,454F.2d626,633(2dCir. h 1972);WesternLifeIns.Co.v.Nanney,296F.Supp.432,441(E.D.Tenn.1969);   Peopleexrel.MacFarlanev.Harthun,581P.2d716,718(Colo.1978). ` Accordingly,aclientmayassertanaffirmativedefenseorcounterclaimbasedonprofessionalnegligenceinresponsetoalawyersactiontoenforceacharginglien.SeeParamountEnggGroup,Inc.v.OaklandLakes,Ltd.,685So.2d11,12(Fla. L Dist.Ct.App.1996);Jarmanv.Hale,731P.2d813,814(IdahoCt.App.1986); @  Coughlinv.SeRine,507N.E.2d505,508(Ill.App.Ct.1987);Neylanv.Moser,400  " N.W.2d538,540(Iowa1987). ` EventhoughTennesseecourtshadrecognizedandenforcedcommonlawchargingliens,seeKeithv.Fitzhugh,83Tenn.at50,theGeneralAssemblycreated $'t"* astatutoryattorneyslienin1899.   #  6      ׀Thus,Tenn.CodeAnn.232102nowprovides ($, that [a]ttorneysandsolicitorsofrecordwhobeginasuitshallhavealienupontheplaintiffsorcomplainantsrightofactionfromthedateofthefilingofthesuit.Thislienattachestoanyproceedsflowingfromajudgment,aslongasthelawyerworkedtosecurethejudgmentfortheclient.SeeButlerv.GMAC,203Tenn.at370 X/*4 71,313S.W.2dat262. 581< @.D B.    ` Ms.StarksfirstargumentisthatthetrialcourtsOctober7,1997orderdidnotcreateavalid,enforceableattorneyslienontheproceedsofthesettlementbecausethelienwasnotnotedinthetrialcourtsfinaljudgment.Inmakingthisargument,shereliesonCobbv.HallmarkStudios,Inc.,704S.W.2d724,725(Tenn.Ct.App.  4  1985)inwhichthiscourtheldthatanattorneysliencouldnotcontinueaftertheentryofafinaljudgmentunlessthelienwasnotedinthejudgmentitself.SeeCobb ,|  v.HallmarkStudios,Inc.,704S.W.2dat725.    ` NothinginTenn.CodeAnn.232102specificallyrequireslawyerstoincludeanotationoftheirlieninthefinaljudgment.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtengraftedthisrequirementontothestatutein1947toassurethatthe publicorasubsequentpurchaserwouldhaveadequatenoticeoftheliensexistence.See T Chumbleyv.Thomas,184Tenn.258,261,198S.W.2d551,552(1947).Whilea  noticerequirementiscertainlysalutaryinsofarasthirdpartiesareconcerned,ithaslessimportanceindisputessolelybetweenthelawyerandhisorherclient.Inthesesortsofdisputes,noticeisnotaproblembecausetheclientknewthatthelawyerexpectedtobepaidwhenheorsheacceptedtheclientscase.However,weneednotaddresstheeffectoffailingtonotealieninthefinaljudgmentbecausetheBartDurhamLawOfficeslienisnotedontheOctober7,1997order. ` TheBartDurhamLawOfficesdidnotincludeanotationofitsattorneyslienintheorderofjudgmentfiledonSeptember4,1997.However,ontheverydaythatjudgmentwasentered,theBartDurhamLawOfficesmovedforpermissiontowithdrawfromthecaseandtoassertanattorneyslienonthesettlementproceeds.Becauseweconstruemotionsbasedontheirsubstance,nottheirtitle,seeBemisCo. X/*4 v.Hines,585S.W.2d574,576(Tenn.1979);Pickardv.Ferrell,45Tenn.App.460, 0L,6 471,325S.W.2d288,29293(1959),weconstruetheSeptember4,1997motionasaTenn.R.Civ.P.59.04motiontoalteroramendthejudgmenttoincludeanotationoftheattorneyslieninthejudgmentitself.Whileitwouldhavebeenbetterpracticetoenteranamendedjudgmentcontainingthenotationoftheattorneyslien,weconstruetheOctober7,1997orderassubstantiallycomplyingwiththerequirementthattheattorneyslienbenotedinthejudgment.TheOctober7,1997orderputMs. :$6B StarksandtherestoftheworldonnoticethattheBartDurhamLawOfficeswasassertingalienon$51,091.99ofthesettlementproceeds.@.D C.     ` Ms.StarkssecondargumentisthateveniftheBartDurhamLawOfficeseffectivelyestablishedtheexistenceofitsattorneyslienbysubstantiallycomplyingwithTenn.CodeAnn.232102,themereestablishmentoftheliendoesnotamounttoanadjudicationoftherightsbetweenherandtheBartDurhamLawOffices.SheassertsthattheattorneyslienwasmerelyachargeagainstthesettlementproceedsandthatthetrialcourtlackedauthoritytoexecuteonthelienortoenterajudgmentintheBartDurhamLawOfficesfavor.Weagree. ` Whileacharginglienservestosecureanattorneysfees,itdoesnotfunctionasanadjudicationoftherightsbetweenthelawyerandhisorherclient./{>SeePierce  v.Lawrence#{>/ୈV#/{>,84Tenn.572,57778,1S.W.204,20506(1886)#{>/V#/ ;t#;t/ t]#/{>.Atrialcourtmay g declaretheexistenceofanattorneyslieninthesuitoutofwhichthedisputeregardingtheattorneysfeearose,butordinarilyanattorney,notbeingapartytotheproceeding,maynotobtainajudgmentwithrespecttohisorherfeeinthataction.#{>/W#/{>See#{>/:Y#/{>Ԁ#{>/ୂY#/{>Statev.Edgefield&KentuckyR.R.#{>/Y#/{>,63Tenn.92,97(1874);#{>/0Z#/{>Perkinsv.Perkins#{>/୏Z#/{>, ##& 56Tenn.(9Heisk.)95,9798(1871).#{>/Z#ԀOncethecourtdeclarestheexistenceofthe n% ( attorneyslienintheunderlyinglitigation,thelienbecomesanequitablechargeonanyrecoverytheclientreceivesinthelitigation. ` Afteracourthasdeclaredanattorneyslien,thelawyermaythencommenceaseparateproceedinginacourtofcompetentjurisdictiontoenforcehisorhercontractualrighttoafee.SeeKeithv.Fitzhugh,83Tenn.49,50(1885);McCamyv. a/*4 Key,71Tenn.247,25051(1879);Brown&Reidv.Bigley,3Tenn.Ch.at626;Fain 1U,6 v.Inman,53Tenn.(6Heisk.)5,12(1871).5  #  7      ׀Inthisseparatesuit,theissuesrelating 2-8 totheattorneysentitlementtothefeeandcostssecuredbythelienandtotheattorneysprofessionalnegligencemaybelitigated.SeePerkinsv.Perkins,56Tenn. 5A1< at9798;Palmerv.Palmer,562S.W.2d833,839(Tenn.Ct.App.1977);Mansonv.  Stacker,36S.W.188,19091(Tenn.Ch.App.1896);Brown&Reidv.Bigley,3 T Tenn.Ch.at626.Thisseparateproceedingofferstheclient,nowinthepostureofadefendant,anopportunitytopresentdefensestotheattorneysclaimforafee,includingdefensesthattheattorneyisnotentitledtoafeebecauseofprofessionalnegligenceorsomeotherbasis.SeeFirstNatlBankofCincinnativ.Pepper,454  4  F.2d626at633;WesternLifeIns.Co.v.Nanney,296F.Supp.at441.    ` Thereisoneexceptiontotherulerequiringanattorneytofileaseparateproceedingtocollectanunpaidfeefromaclient.Thisexceptionappliestocasesinwhichthemoneyorpropertyuponwhichthelienistobeenforcedcomeswithinthecontrolofthecourtinthecaseinwhichtheserviceswererendered.Whenthecourtisabletoexertjurisdictiondirectlyoverthefundsorproperty,theattorneyneednotresorttoaseparatesuittoenforcehisorherlien.SeeStatev.Edgefield&Kentucky T R.R.,63Tenn.at97;Palmerv.Palmer,562S.W.2dat839.   ` Thefactsofthiscasedonotfallwithinthenarrowconfinesoftheexceptiontothegeneralrequirementthatalawyermustfileaseparatesuitagainsthisorherclienttocollectadisputedfee.TheOctober7,1997orderdirectingMs.Starkstopay$51,091.99intocourtwasnotpartoftheunderlyinglitigationbetweenMs.StarksandtheBrowningsandwasenteredafterthatlitigationhadbeenconcluded.Rather,theorderwaspartofthepostjudgmentdisputebetweentheBartDurhamLawOfficesandMs.Starksoverlegalfeesandexpenses.Accordingly,becausethesettlementproceedswereneverbroughtunderthecontrolofthetrialcourtduringtheunderlyinglitigation,theBartDurhamLawOfficesshouldhavefiledaseparateactionagainstMs.Starksforitsfeeratherthanattemptingtoobtainitinthiscase. ` HoldingthatthetrialcourtshouldnothaveentertainedtheclaimforlegalfeesandcostsinthelitigationbetweenMs.StarksandtheBrowningswillnotdeprivetheBartDurhamLawOfficesofitsopportunitytoadjudicateitsrighttorecoveritsfeesandexpenses.Ms.StarkspendingmalpracticeactionprovidestheBartDurhamLawOfficeswithanavenuetocounterclaimfortheunpaidattorneysfeesandcosts.If Ms.StarksdoesnotprevailwithhermalpracticeclaimandiftheBartDurhamLaw 094@ Officescanestablishthatitisentitledtotheclaimedattorneysfeesandcosts,thenthetrialcourtinthatcasewillbeabletoenterajudgmentaccordingly.  ` TheBartDurhamLawOfficesassertthatrequiringlawyerstofileseparateproceedingstocollectcontingentfeeswillunderminecontingencyfeebasedrepresentation.Itarguesthatclientswilltakeunfairadvantageoflawyersbyassertingthattheydidnotreceivesatisfactoryrepresentationsimplytoavoidpayingattorneysfeesortoinducetheattorneytoacceptareducedfee.AccordingtotheBartDurhamLawOffices,assertionsoflegalmalpractice,whethergroundlessornot,willtieuptheattorneysfeesuntileithertheclientfilesamalpracticeactionagainstthelawyerorthelawyerfilessuitagainsttheclienttocollectthedisputedfee.Thislitigationwillresultinextendeddelaysinreceivingafeeandinrequiringlawyerstoincursignificantadditionalexpensetocollecttheirfees.P ? ` Weacknowledgethattheseargumentshavevalidityincircumstanceswhereaclientusesamalpracticeclaimasastrategicploytoavoidpayingattorneysfeesaltogetherortoinducethelawyertoacceptasmallerfee.Thesecircumstances,however,arenotpresentinthiscase.Ms.StarksregisteredherdispleasurewiththesettlementrecommendedbytheBartDurhamLawOfficesalmostimmediatelyandretainednewcounselsoonthereafternotonlytorepresentherintheunderlyingactionagainsttheBrowningdefendantsbutalsotopursueamalpracticeclaimagainsttheBartDurhamLawOffices.Ifeversubstantiated,herallegationthatshewasinducedtosettlewhentheBartDurhamLawOfficesadvisedherthather$281,000judgmentagainstMr.BrowningcouldberenderedworthlessifMr.Browningfiledforbankruptcyisnotfrivolous.Accordingly,wedonotfindthatMs.StarksconductexhibitsthetypeofbadfaithaboutwhichtheBartDurhamLawOfficesisconcerned.Q ?m @-DIII. 0L,6  ` Weaffirmtheportionoftheorderimposingalienon$51,091.99ofthe D4/: proceedsofMs.StarkssettlementwiththeBrowningdefendantstosecurethepaymentoftheattorneysfeesandcostsclaimedbytheBartDurhamLawOffices.However,wereversetheportionsoftheorderawardingtheBartDurhamLawOfficesajudgmentfor$51,091.99anddirectingMs.Starkstopay$51,091.99intocourt.We :$6B remandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinionandtaxthecosts,inequalproportions,totheBartDurhamInjuryandAccidentLawOfficesandtoStellaL.Starksandhersuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue. `     h     ____________________________ `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:_________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S._________________________________WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE    ' !{>8{>dd8@  D INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @ZZ)DATNASHVILLE  B {>{>STELLAL.STARKS, h     )    `     h     ) ` Plaintiff/Appellant,    )  P  `     h     ) p RobertsonCircuit h  VS. `     h     ) p No.7342 0   `     h     )SAMUELJ.BROWNING,    ) p AppealNo. `  JOSEPHF.BROWNING,and    ) p 01A019801CV00038 x  MARYBROWNING, h     )    `     h     ) ` Defendants/Appellees.    )  # ' !{>ow# @cc(DJUDGMENT  2  ! ' ` ThiscausecameontobeheardupontherecordonappealfromtheRobertsonCounty  CircuitCourt,thebriefsoftheparties,andargumentsofcounsel.Uponconsiderationoftheentirerecord,thiscourtfindsandconcludesthatthetrialjudgesjudgmentshouldbeaffirmedinpartandreversedinpart. ` Inaccordancewiththeopinionfiledcontemporaneouslywiththisjudgment,itis,therefore,ordered,adjudged,anddecreedthatthetrialcourtsjudgmentbeandisherebyaffirmedinpartandreversedinpart_____,andthatthecauseberemandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththiscourtsopinion. ` ItisfurtherorderedthatthecostsofthisappealbetaxedinequalproportionstothebartBartDurhamInjury&AccidentLawOfficesandtoStellaL.Starks,principal,andSteveR.Darnell,usurety,forwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary___. `     h      p _______________________________ `     h      p BENH.CANTRELL, `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,M.S. `     h      p _______________________________ `     h      p WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE `     h      p _______________________________ `     h      p WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE