DECISION AND ORDER This matter was assigned to the undersigned Special Referee pursuant to the standing orders of the Hon. Alan D. Scheinkman, JSC, dated September 5, 2017 and December 13, 2017. The parties, their respective counsel, and non-party movant Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, have consented to have the undersigned hear and determine this matter by Hear and Determine Stipulation, which was so ordered on April 17, 2018 by the Hon. Lewis J. Lubell, JSC. Accordingly, the following constitutes the decision and order of the undersigned Special Referee.This matter involves two motions pertaining to an amended Notice of Charging Lien (“charging lien”), which was filed by non-party movant Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP (“BSF”) on March 9, 2018.On February 9, 2018, plaintiff filed motion sequence nine seeking an order (i) dismissing a notice of charging lien dated June 20, 2016 in the sum of $902,336.00; (ii) staying all matters pursuant to CPLR 2201 as justice requires pending further order of this court;1 and (iii) for such other relief as the court deems just and proper.On March 9,2018, BSF filed motion sequence ten seeking an order (i) fixing the lien granted by Judiciary Law §475 in favor of BSF for legal fees and disbursements owed to BSF by plaintiff in connection with the underlying matrimonial action in the sum of $797,905.56, plus prejudgment interest2; (ii) directing that the lien be enforced against plaintiff’s distributive award pursuant to the settlement of the underlying divorce action; (iii) granting BSF prejudgment interest from thirty days after each of BSF’s unpaid invoices was issued; (iv) granting BSF a money judgment for the total outstanding legal fees and costs plus prejudgment interest; and (v) such further relief as the court deems just and proper.A. BackgroundThe parties were divorced by judgment dated May 6, 2015, which judgment incorporated but did not merge an on-the-record stipulation of settlement entered into on February 18, 2015.Plaintiff retained BSF pursuant to a retainer agreement (“BSF retainer”) dated May 14, 2012 (Exhibit A to motion sequence ten), by which it appears plaintiff was initially charged a fee of $100,000.00. Although the BSF retainer states: “[i]n addition, please review the attached Statement of Client Rights and Responsibilities”, a Statement of Client’s Rights and Responsibilities (“Statement of Client’s Rights”) was not appended to the BSF retainer annexed to the motion (Motion Seq. ten, Exhibit A). Although BSF avers that plaintiff was provided with and signed a Statement of Client’s Rights, which BSF claims sets forth its right to a charging lien in the event of nonpayment of fees (Affirmation of Charles Fox Miller, dated March 8, 2018, 5 [hereinafter "Miller Aff.__"]), BSF has not produced a copy of the Statement of Client’s Rights signed by plaintiff and BSF.Thereafter, just seven days later and on May 21, 2012, plaintiff also signed a retainer agreement (“the Bender Firm retainer”) with the law firm of Bender Rosenthal Isaacs and Richter, LLP (“the Bender Firm”). With regard to the Bender Firm, Dina Kaplan, Esq. (“Ms. Kaplan”), appeared for plaintiff in the underlying matrimonial action. It appears from a review of the submissions that BSF was co-counsel with the Bender Firm. The court takes judicial notice of the Bender Firm retainer, which was filed along with plaintiff’s statement of net worth in the Westchester County Clerk’s office on March 15, 2013.3BSF asserts that its retainer with plaintiff was filed with the court (Reply Affirmation of Charles Fox Miller dated April 16, 2018, 5 [hereinafter "Miller Reply Aff. __"]). Nonetheless, the court has taken judicial notice of the documents on file with the Westchester County Clerk, and notes that plaintiff’s statement of net worth filed on March 15, 2013 does not have the BSF retainer filed with it. It is only the Bender Firm’s retainer that was filed with plaintiff’s statement of net worth.The original charging lien filed on June 20, 2016, was in the sum of $902,336.00. By notice of amended charging lien filed on March 9, 2018, BSF amended the amount it sought to fix as its charging lien to $797,905.56, inasmuch as BSF did not account for one of plaintiff’s payments in July 2015 (Miller Aff. 3). According to BSF, plaintiff has paid a total of $693,599.00 in legal fees to BSF (Miller Aff. 26) since the inception of the underlying matrimonial action.B. Parties’ ContentionsBSF alleges that plaintiff had several weeks to review the retainer agreement, and she was also advised by her brother-in-law who is an attorney. Furthermore, BSF claims that the retainer agreement was also reviewed on plaintiff’s behalf by an independent law firm, Covington & Burling LLP, and changes were made at that firm’s request (Miller Aff., 5). In further support of its request to fix its charging lien, BSF contends that it represented plaintiff for approximately two and one-half years, throughout discovery and highly contested pre-trial proceedings. BSF states that after it completed discovery and months before the trial began, it asked plaintiff to release it as counsel, but plaintiff pleaded with BSF to take a major role in the upcoming matrimonial trial. BSF also alleges that it appeared at the trial of plaintiff’s matrimonial action for approximately 22 days from November, 2014 through February, 2015. According to BSF, some trial days were handled only by Ms. Kaplan without BSF’s attendance, as part of an effort to reduce plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs. BSF asserts that at regular intervals during trial, BSF repeated its assurance that plaintiff would be well-represented by Ms. Kaplan. Nevertheless, according to BSF, plaintiff and her parents insisted that BSF continue representing plaintiff during the trial, irrespective of the fact that BSF was then owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees and costs (Miller Aff.
6-10).BSF argues that plaintiff did not object to a single fee invoice it rendered to her, nor did plaintiff ever claim, until these motions were filed, that BSF’s services were anything less than excellent. According to BSF, plaintiff made periodic payments toward the fees and disbursements that BSF incurred and invoiced on a monthly basis. BSF states that plaintiff “praised our work and insisted that the Firm continue to represent her even as we advised that it was not necessary.” (Miller Aff., 12, emphasis added).BSF contends that Judiciary Law §475 entitles it to a charging lien inasmuch as plaintiff executed a retainer agreement with BSF, BSF issued invoices on a regular basis, and plaintiff paid BSF’s legal fees until July, 2015. BSF also asserts that it has an account stated since plaintiff did not object to invoices within a reasonable time after having received them. In addition, BSF seeks enforcement of the charging lien against plaintiff’s interest in the former marital residence asserting that plaintiffs interest in the home, over and above her one-half of a joint interest, created a new fund to which the charging lien attaches. BSF also seeks prejudgment interest on all unpaid balances beginning from thirty days after each invoice was issued (Miller Aff.
