No Records, No Lien: Eleventh Circuit affirms extinguishment of a Georgia attorney’s lien absent credible proof of value

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Non-Argument Calendar; Not for Publication)

Date: October 21, 2025

Case: Stephanie Maddox v. Ethel L. Munson, No. 25-11097 (appeal from the M.D. Ga., No. 3:21-cv-00124-CAR)

Introduction

This appeal arises from a fee dispute between attorney Ethel L. Munson (Intervenor-Appellant) and her former client, Stephanie Maddox (Plaintiff-Appellee), after Maddox settled an employment case against the Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County (ACC). Following the settlement, Munson asserted an attorney’s lien against the settlement proceeds. The district court extinguished the lien and later denied Munson’s motion for relief from that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3).

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. While the district court had offered three independent reasons to extinguish the lien—(1) abandonment, (2) lack of benefit to the client from Munson’s services, and (3) failure of proof of value—the court of appeals affirmed solely on the third ground: Munson failed to present credible evidence demonstrating the value and reasonableness of her fees as Georgia law requires. The panel also found it unnecessary to reach Munson’s Rule 60(b)(3) challenge, given the sufficiency of the failure-of-proof ground.

The opinion clarifies and reinforces a practical but often overlooked point of Georgia law: even in contingency cases, an attorney seeking to enforce an attorney’s lien must present credible, specific evidence (such as hours, rates, and supporting documentation) establishing both the value and reasonableness of the services rendered. Inconsistent lien demands and the absence of corroborating records can fatally undermine such a claim.

Summary of the Opinion

The panel (Newsom, Branch, and Grant, JJ., per curiam) affirmed the district court’s order extinguishing Munson’s attorney’s lien on the settlement proceeds obtained by Maddox.
Applying Georgia law to the lien claim and abuse-of-discretion review to the fee determination, the court held that Munson failed to carry her burden to prove the value and reasonableness of her services.
Key to the affirmance were: (a) three materially different lien/fee figures ($34,860; $78,630; and an itemized $41,606.25); (b) the lack of live testimony or documentation from the office manager or accountant said to have prepared or verified time data; and (c) the district court’s credibility findings, which are entitled to great deference on appeal.
Because this failure-of-proof alone supported the judgment, the court did not reach the district court’s alternative grounds (abandonment and lack of benefit) or Munson’s Rule 60(b)(3) arguments alleging perjury at the evidentiary hearing.
Result: AFFIRMED.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2021, Maddox retained Munson on a contingency fee after Maddox’s termination as ACC’s internal auditor. Munson sued ACC and two officials, asserting First Amendment retaliation and a Georgia Whistleblower Act claim. The individual-defendant retaliation claims were dismissed; claims against ACC proceeded.

In December 2023, after communication and strategy disagreements, Maddox retained new counsel and Munson withdrew. In March 2024, Maddox settled with ACC for $44,653.63. The same day the release was signed, Munson sent ACC a lien notice for $34,860, followed three days later by a revised lien for $78,630 (the revision purportedly reflecting previously omitted mandamus-related costs).

Because of the asserted lien, the settlement funds were deposited into the court’s registry. Maddox moved to extinguish the lien, arguing Munson could not substantiate her claimed fees, that Munson’s services did not produce the settlement (which was instead premised on a local ordinance violation discovered by new counsel), and that Munson had effectively abandoned the representation by repeatedly telling Maddox to seek new counsel.

The district court held an evidentiary hearing. Munson presented neither her office manager nor the accountant to support her time records and brought no documentary support beyond an itemized list totaling $41,606.25 for 110.96 hours. The court found multiple credibility problems, including inconsistent fee figures, delays in producing an itemized bill, and confusion about who prepared it and how. The court extinguished the lien and denied Munson’s request for release of funds.

Munson then moved for relief under Rule 60(b)(3), alleging perjury by Maddox and current counsel on discrete points (e.g., whether a therapist report existed; whether a whistleblower claim had been pled; whether Maddox reviewed the complaint; and whether a filing contained multiple mistakes). The district court denied relief, reasoning that even accepting Munson’s perjury allegations, its independent conclusions—particularly the failure-of-proof ground—would remain undisturbed.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

Friends of the Everglades v. South Florida Water Management District, 678 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2012) — Establishes the abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing fee determinations. The Eleventh Circuit applied this deferential standard to the district court’s decision to extinguish the lien.
Gray ex rel. Alexander v. Bostic, 613 F.3d 1035 (11th Cir. 2010) — Explains that abuse of discretion includes reliance on clearly erroneous facts, failure to apply proper standards, or clear errors of judgment, while recognizing a “range of choices” within which the district court may act. This framed the panel’s deference to the district court’s credibility determinations and evidentiary assessment.
O.C.G.A. § 15-19-14(b) — Georgia’s attorney-lien statute, which gives attorneys an equitable lien on actions and judgments for their fees, superior to all liens except tax liens. The statute presupposes enforceability only when the attorney demonstrates fees “due” for services rendered.
Howe & Assocs., P.C. v. Daniels, 618 S.E.2d 42 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) — Recognizes the equitable right to recover fees and costs “out of the judgment obtained by [the attorney’s] professional services.”
Amstead v. McFarland, 650 S.E.2d 737 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) — Confirms that a discharged contingency-fee lawyer may recover in quantum meruit, but still must prove value.
Webb v. Watkins, 641 S.E.2d 611 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) — Places the burden squarely on the attorney to establish both the amount of fees and their reasonableness; an attorney cannot recover without proof of value.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Tvrdeich, 602 S.E.2d 297 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) — Holds that even contingency-fee counsel must introduce evidence of hours, rates, or some other reliable indicator of value for services actually rendered.
Patton v. Turnage, 580 S.E.2d 604 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) — A party’s approximation of legal fees is insufficient; specific proof is required.
Southern Co. v. Hamburg, 470 S.E.2d 467 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996) — An award of attorney’s fees is unauthorized where the proponent fails to prove actual costs and their reasonableness.
Ballard v. C.I.R., 429 F.3d 1026 (11th Cir. 2005) — Appellate courts defer heavily to trial-court credibility determinations, which should not be disturbed absent manifest unreasonableness. This supports leaving in place the district court’s skepticism about the fee submissions.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal analysis proceeded in three steps.

Standard of Review. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial of attorneys’ fees and costs for abuse of discretion. This deferential standard acknowledges a trial court’s superior vantage point to assess credibility and weigh evidence, particularly at an evidentiary hearing.
Applicable Substantive Law. Georgia law governs attorney’s liens on judgments and settlements in Georgia cases. Although Georgia law gives attorneys an equitable lien, the right is not self-executing; it requires proof. The attorney bears the burden to show (a) what fees are being claimed and (b) their reasonableness, even in contingency-fee contexts. That proof normally includes hours, rates, and some objective measure of value; vague approximations or inconsistent numbers do not suffice.
Application to the Facts. Three features doomed the lien:
- Inconsistent fee claims. Munson asserted three materially different figures: an initial $34,860 lien, a revised $78,630 lien (purportedly adding mandamus-related costs), and an itemized bill for $41,606.25 introduced at the hearing. Such variances eroded confidence in the reliability of the claimed amounts.
- Lack of corroboration and poor recordkeeping. Although Munson suggested her office manager and an accountant maintained time data and could prepare a fee petition, she did not present live testimony from those individuals or produce the underlying records at the hearing. The district court, which even allowed additional time post-hearing for supporting documents, received none that substantiated the bill.
- Credibility determinations. The district court expressly found Munson’s explanations “lack[ed] credibility,” pointing to multiple and shifting bills, delays, confusion over who compiled the bill, the methodology used, and even initial indications that the client would be charged for preparing a fee petition. Given the heightened deference owed to such credibility findings, the court of appeals would not disturb them.
With those deficiencies, Munson did not carry her burden under Georgia law to show actual costs and reasonableness, so extinguishing the lien was within the district court’s discretion. Because this ground sufficed, the panel did not address the district court’s alternative conclusions (abandonment; no client benefit), nor did it need to reach Munson’s Rule 60(b)(3) arguments premised on alleged perjury.

Impact and Practical Significance

Although unpublished and nonprecedential, the decision carries meaningful guidance for practitioners in Georgia and beyond who seek to enforce attorney’s liens in federal court:

Contemporaneous records matter—even for contingency-fee cases. Georgia law requires credible proof of value and reasonableness. Attorneys should maintain contemporaneous time records and be prepared to present testimony and documentary support at evidentiary hearings, especially when seeking to intercept settlement funds through a lien.
Consistency is critical. Materially inconsistent fee claims invite adverse credibility findings. Before asserting a lien, ensure the amount sought is carefully vetted, cross-referenced against the retainer or initial payment, and consistent across notices and submissions.
Support your bill with witnesses and documents. If an office manager or accountant compiled the data, their live testimony and the underlying workpapers should be available. Courts evaluate not only the bottom-line figure but also the method and integrity of the calculation.
Credibility findings are hard to overcome on appeal. Appellate courts defer considerably to trial judges’ credibility determinations. Once a district court finds your fee proof not credible, reversal is unlikely without manifest error.
Rule 60(b)(3) is no backstop if an independent failure-of-proof remains. Allegations of perjury will not rescue a lien claim where there is an independent, sufficient basis for the judgment—here, the failure to prove fees and reasonableness.
Unresolved but noteworthy issues. The panel did not reach whether Munson abandoned the client or whether her services conferred value where the ultimate settlement turned on a new claim identified by successor counsel. Those questions remain fact- and case-specific and can affect entitlement to quantum meruit in other disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Attorney’s lien (Georgia): An equitable right allowing a lawyer to secure payment for services from a client’s cause of action and any resulting recovery. Under O.C.G.A. § 15-19-14(b), it is superior to all liens except tax liens, but it is enforceable only if the attorney proves the fees are due and reasonable.
Quantum meruit: Latin for “as much as he deserves.” When a contingency-fee attorney is discharged before earning the contingency, Georgia law may allow recovery of the reasonable value of services rendered. Proof of value remains essential (e.g., hours, reasonable rates, comparable market evidence).
Abuse of discretion: A deferential standard of appellate review. A decision will be reversed only if based on an incorrect legal standard, clearly erroneous facts, or a clear error of judgment. Credibility findings by the trial court are rarely disturbed.
Rule 60(b)(3) (fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct): Allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for fraud or similar misconduct by an opposing party. Relief generally requires showing that the misconduct prevented the movant from fully and fairly presenting their case. Here, the court did not reach the Rule 60 issue because an independent, sufficient ground supported the judgment.
Registry of the court: A court-managed account where disputed funds (like settlement proceeds subject to a lien) may be deposited pending resolution of competing claims.
Per curiam; Non-Argument Calendar; Not for Publication: “Per curiam” denotes an unsigned decision of the court. “Non-Argument Calendar” means the case was decided on the briefs without oral argument. “Not for Publication” indicates the opinion is nonprecedential in the Eleventh Circuit, though it may be cited as persuasive authority.

Practice Pointers

Maintain time contemporaneously even in flat-fee and contingency matters; be prepared to produce detailed, itemized records correlating tasks to time spent.
If third parties (office managers, accountants) prepare fee petitions, ensure they can testify and bring their workpapers. Courts will scrutinize methodology and sourcing.
Align lien amounts with contracts, retainers, and costs; explain any changes in sworn submissions; avoid presenting multiple, inconsistent figures.
Substantiate reasonableness with market evidence (prevailing rates, complexity, results obtained, efficiency, comparable cases) in addition to raw hours.
Consider the optics and ethics of charging a current or former client for the cost of creating a fee petition where you are seeking to enforce a lien on their recovery; be prepared to justify or avoid that charge.
If a successor lawyer obtains recovery on a different legal theory, evaluate whether and how your contributions added value, and be prepared to prove it.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Maddox v. Munson underscores a straightforward but decisive rule in Georgia: an attorney’s lien will not be enforced without credible, specific proof of both the value and the reasonableness of the attorney’s services. Inconsistencies in claimed amounts, the absence of contemporaneous records, and lack of corroborating testimony or documentation can justify extinguishing a lien—even where an attorney performed substantial work.

By affirming on the failure-of-proof ground alone, the court avoided broader questions about abandonment and client benefit that often complicate attorney–client separation. The message is pragmatic: document your work, prove your value, and support your numbers. Without that, the equitable remedy of an attorney’s lien will not stand.