Gilman

The nature of medical liens and attorney liens, and their priority with respect to a monetary recovery obtained in a lawsuit by an injured plaintiff against a tortfeasor, are subjects that consume much of a personal injury plaintiff lawyer’s time; and they have been the subjects of numerous appellate decisions. (See, e.g., Fletcher v. Davis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 61 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 58 , 90 P.3d 1216 ]; Cetenko v. United California Bank (1982) 30 Cal.3d 528 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 902 , 638 P.2d 1299 ]; Waltrip v. Kimberlin (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 517 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 460 ]; Pangborn Plumbing Corp. v. Carruthers & Skiffington (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1039 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 416 ]; Wujcik v. Wujcik (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1790 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 102 ]; Nicoletti v. Lizzoli (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 361 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 685 ]; see also Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1168 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 532 ].)

However, the parties in this proceeding have not pointed to, and we have not found, any decision that has directly decided which of a contractual medical lien and an attorney lien for fees and costs of litigation has priority over the other. We address the question now, without…