Where an attorney has a charging lien against a fund, a portion to the amount of his claim belongs to the attorney and cannot be assigned by the judgment creditor, and whoever receives it under an assignment is, in justice, to be considered as holding to the attorneys’ use and benefit. Id. ¶ 11 Arizona eases since Linder have recognized that attorneys have a right superior to the client or other lien holders when the attorneys’ efforts created the funds in dispute. See, e.g., Langerman Law Offices, P.A v. Glen Eagles at Princess Resort, LLC, 220 Ariz. 252, 254, ¶ 9, 204 P.3d 1101, 1103 (App.2009) (recognizing the general rule that an attorney has priority over the client to funds “created by his efforts”); Holly v. State, 199 Ariz. 358, 360-61, ¶¶ 13-18, 18 P.3d 152, 154-55 (App.2001) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 12 Because the right of Wang’s attorneys to
holding an order of contempt is a matter of right for someone who has a pecuniary interest such asthe payment of costs and attorneys fees in the enforcement of a final decree holding defendant liable for attorneys fees when the guaranty contract at issue provided for the payment of collection costs and expenses holding that no statutory basis exists to impose lien on inmate trust account for court costs and fines holding that an attorneys right to payment from a fund created through his efforts has priority over the states rights to statutory setoffs for inmate costs holding that a federal tax lien was entitled to priority over a mortgagees inchoate claim for attorneys fees