Treziyah Toma v. Auto Club Ins Assoc, 330585

Plaintiff (Toma) was represented by attorney Nazek A. Gappy in a no-fault/uninsured motorist action arising from a motor vehicle accident; St. Peter Medical Center (SPMC) and LN Transportation intervened and were represented by a different law firm.
Intervenors later settled their claims with Auto Club Insurance for medical payments; plaintiff filed a motion to enforce an attorney charging lien seeking $18,648 (one-third of a $56,000 payment she alleged defendant had approved).
Plaintiff asserted Gappy had a longstanding “working relationship” with SPMC and thus had an enforceable lien on the settlement proceeds.
Trial court granted the motion and enforced the $18,648 charging lien against the settlement proceeds paid to SPMC.
The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding plaintiff failed to prove (1) an attorney-client relationship with the intervenors, (2) that Gappy’s services produced the settlement, and (3) that the contingency-fee basis for the lien complied with MCR 8.121(F) and MRPC 1.5(c) (no written contingent-fee agreement).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an attorney charging lien could be imposed on intervenors’ settlement proceeds	Gappy had a working relationship with SPMC and thus a charging lien attaching to the recovery	Intervenors had their own counsel and no agreement with Gappy; no lien should attach	Reversed — lien improperly imposed
Whether an attorney-client relationship with intervenors was established	A de facto agreement/existing practice between Gappy and SPMC established representation	No written contract or evidence of retention by intervenors; intervenors hired separate counsel	No — plaintiff failed to prove an attorney-client relationship
Whether Gappy’s services produced or secured the settlement	Gappy’s prior work and communications contributed to the recovery (defendant had approved payment earlier)	Intervenors intervened and were represented by other counsel well before settlement; no causal link shown	No — plaintiff did not show settlement resulted from Gappy’s services
Whether contingent-fee lien was enforceable without written agreement	Fee should be allowed as one-third of recovery or under quantum meruit	MCR 8.121(F) and MRPC 1.5(c) require written contingent-fee agreements; none existed	No — contingency fee unenforceable without written agreement; quantum meruit barred by plaintiff’s unclean hands

Reynolds v. Polen, 222 Mich. App. 20 (discretionary review of attorney charging lien)
Souden v. Souden, 303 Mich. App. 406 (charging lien is a common-law equitable lien on recovery)
Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. v. Capital Bancorp Ltd., 212 Mich. App. 325 (attorney-client relationship must be established by contract to recover fees)
Miller v. Citizens Ins. Co., 288 Mich. App. 424 (no common fund where medical provider did not intervene; issues about attorney fee allocation), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 490 Mich. 905
Elher v. Misra, 499 Mich. 11 (standard for abuse of discretion)
Morris Pumps Co. v. Centerline Piping, Inc., 273 Mich. App. 187 (quantum meruit is an equitable claim)