rendered in an earlier proceeding, the proceedings have been more related. In Turtle Creek Bank & Trust Co. v. Murdock (one of many cases cited in Recht), Murdock hired counsel who helped him establish his claim to title over a parcel of real property. See 150 Pa.Super. 277, 28 A.2d 320, 321 (1942). Once Murdock held title, a bank revived, then executed on, a judgment, causing the property to be sold at sheriffs sale. See id. Murdock’s counsel in the title dispute wished to impose a charging lien over the proceeds of the sheriffs sale. See id. The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that counsel was entitled to a charging lien because without counsel’s efforts, Murdock would not have had legal title and there would not have been a sheriffs sale or fund for distribution. See id. at 322 (<HOLDING>). Despite reservations about whether Leckey’s
holding a suit against a sheriff in his individual capacity was subject to section 1146llls notice requirements because the sheriff was acting in his official capacity holding also that the money in the hands of the sheriff for distributions was  created or at least made available by the efforts of counsel holding that action for lien seeks money damages because its goal is to seize or attach money in the hands of the government as compensation   holding sheriff not a prosecutor even though he sat at counsel table with the district attorney holding that acts by a sheriff which gave rise to the plaintiffs claim against him were taken in the execution of his duties as sheriff and thus the sheriff was immune under  14 from an action seeking damages against him in his individual capacity