It is hereby found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the Supreme Court, in Henry, Walden, and Davis v. Goodman, 294 Ark. 25 (1987), limited the existing Attorney's Lien Law by allowing only a quantum meruit recovery in a case in which the attorney was dismissed by the client; that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Attorney Lien Law is contrary to what was intended by the enactment of Acts 59 and 306 of 1941, the Attorney Lien Law; that an attorney should have the right to rely on his contract with his client; and that the Attorney's Lien Law should be reenacted to protect the contractual rights of attorneys. Therefore, it is the intent of §§ 16-22-302 — 16-22-304 to allow an attorney to obtain a lien for services based on his or her agreement with his or her client and to provide for compensation in case of a settlement or compromise without the consent of the attorney.
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-301
Legislative intent
Applied in 17 court decisions — leading case Crockett & Brown, P.A. v. Wilson (1993)
Most recently applied in Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Kosin (February 2011)
Acts 1989, No. 293, § 1.
How often courts cite this section
Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
Current official text: Arkansas General Assembly. Digitized from the UniCourt Code Improvement Commission public-domain capture. Reproduced from public-domain Arkansas statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.