v. Davis, 90 P.3d 1216, 1221 (Cal. 2004). NRS 18.015(3) promotes these policies by requiring an attorney to serve notice and perfect a charging lien in a timely manner. Diligent perfection of the lien under NRS 18.015(3) ensures that the client, the client’s opponent in the litigation, and others have notice of the attorney’s hen and may conduct the litigation and deal with any recovery it produces accordingly. A timely motion to adjudicate and enforce the charging lien under NRS 18.015(4) also enables the court to evaluate the lien while it has jurisdiction over any affirmative recovery, while the attorney’s performance is fresh in its mind, and before the judgment is satisfied and the proceeds are distributed. See Weiland v. Weiland, 814 So. 2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (<HOLDING>); Sowder, 911 P.2d at 1038 (holding that a law
holding that where property remained to be transferred after the conclusion of a case the lien was timely perfected before the transfer of property even though notice was served after the conclusion of the case holding that notice was untimely where the attorney waited to establish the lien until approximately two months after the case concluded holding that the case must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where notice of appeal was untimely holding that the defendants objection was untimely when he waited until the end of the prosecutors closing argument to raise it holding that motion for mistrial was untimely where defendant waited two or three minutes after the objectionable testimony occurred to make objection