The opinion
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 1 of 27
FOR PUBLICATION
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-14039
____________________
In Re: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
ALIEN TORT STATUTE AND SHAREHOLDERS
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
___________________________________
MYRIAM RAMIREZ GARCIA,
substituted in place of Antonio Gonzalez
Carrizosa, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
ALL DOES (1–144),
PAUL DAVID WOLF,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP,
Interested Party-Appellee,
CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants,
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 2 of 27
2 Opinion of the Court 24-14039
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:08-md-01916-KAM
____________________
Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
LUCK, Circuit Judge:
This is an interlocutory appeal of an order enforcing a charg-
ing lien arising out of an attorney’s contractual or equitable right
to payment from his client’s recovery. To reach the merits here,
we’d have to conclude that we have jurisdiction under the collat-
eral-order doctrine over such orders. But we can’t. The set of or-
ders appealable under the doctrine is limited to ones “that threaten
important interests that become moot if an appeal is not interlocu-
tory.” Fleming v. United States, 127 F.4th 837, 840 (11th Cir. 2025).
Because orders enforcing charging liens arising out of an attorney’s
contractual or equitable right to payment from his client’s recovery
neither threaten important interests nor become effectively unre-
viewable at the end of a case, they’re not appealable under the col-
lateral-order doctrine. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
In 2007, a group of Colombian plaintiffs—Does 1–144—re-
tained Paul Wolf and Terrence Collingsworth to sue Chiquita
Brands International, Inc. The Does alleged that, between 1997
and 2004, Chiquita paid more than $1.7 million to the Autodefensas
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 3 of 27
24-14039 Opinion of the Court 3
Unidas de Colombia—a paramilitary group designated as a foreign
terrorist organization—to quell labor unrest and drive rival guer-
rilla groups out of Colombia’s banana-growing regions. See Carri-
zosa v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 47 F.4th 1278, 1295 (11th Cir. 2022)
(describing the claims). That money, the Does alleged, paid for the
AUC to murder their relatives. Id.
Wolf and Collingsworth’s retainer agreement provided that
they’d be paid for their work on contingency. If the Does “ob-
tain[ed] monetary compensation” before trial, they’d pay Wolf and
Collingsworth one-third of the award. It also gave each attorney
“exclusive authority to retain additional attorneys to work with the
[Does] to process the[ir] claims” against Chiquita. But “[a]ny other
agreement with any other attorney or attorneys retained [would
be] between [Wolf and Collingsworth] and those attorneys.” [Id.]
Soon after the Does sued, their action was transferred into a multi-
district litigation in the Southern District of Florida, which is still
ongoing.
Almost immediately, a rift grew between the two lawyers.
Collingsworth, who’d been practicing solo at the time the Does re-
tained him, joined the firm of Conrad & Scherer in early 2008.
Wolf quickly notified Collingsworth that, by joining Conrad &
Scherer, he’d breached an agreement Wolf and Collingsworth
made “to work as equal partners on all Colombian fruit cases for
the next ten years”—an agreement that he believed “[didn’t] trans-
fer to Conrad [&] Scherrer [sic].” Wolf proposed that he and Col-
lingsworth “discontinue [their] relationship” and that they ask the
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 4 of 27
4 Opinion of the Court 24-14039
district court “[to] decide who ha[d] power of representation over
the clients [they’d] signed retainer agreements with.” Wolf and
Collingsworth then filed competing motions to be designated lead
counsel for the Does. Collingsworth’s motion made it clear that
he was acting as a member of Conrad & Scherer.
But before the district court ruled on the motions, Wolf and
Collingsworth stipulated that Collingsworth would serve as lead
counsel for the Does. The district court issued an order confirming
the stipulation. The order didn’t mention Conrad & Scherer, [see
id.] but the district court continued to treat the firm as lead counsel
for the Does even after Collingsworth left in late 2015.
The stipulation didn’t usher in a lasting peace. Whatever
working relationship Wolf had with Conrad & Scherer collapsed
when Wolf publicly divulged the details of confidential discussions
between members of the Chiquita multidistrict litigation plaintiffs’
group, including Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer. Conrad &
Scherer and the other plaintiffs’ attorneys responded by freezing
out Wolf from all confidential discussions.
After several years of acrimony, Wolf and Conrad & Scherer
agreed that Wolf could exclusively represent the Does. The district
court therefore discharged Conrad & Scherer from the representa-
tion. It also instructed Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer to file
a charging lien later “to preserve any entitlement to” costs and fees
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 5 of 27
24-14039 Opinion of the Court 5
they’d incurred in representing the Does. Conrad & Scherer did so
under Florida law.1
Wolf eventually reached a settlement with Chiquita for his
clients, including the Does. The settlement contemplated that
Chiquita would pay $12.8 million into an escrow account. As the
retainer agreement provided, one-third of that sum would go to
Wolf as attorney’s fees. The rest would go to the Does and Wolf’s
other clients. The district court approved the proposed settlement
and entered an order requiring Wolf’s clients, including the Does,
to inform Wolf whether they accepted Chiquita’s settlement offer.
The clients who didn’t comply would have their claims dismissed
with prejudice. Those who accepted the settlement would be paid
a fixed amount in exchange for their “complete release of all [ ]
claims,” while those who rejected it could continue litigating their
claims. To disburse the settlement money—and Wolf’s attorney’s
fees—the district court established a qualified settlement fund.
1 Under Florida law, a charging lien is “an equitable right to have costs and
fees due an attorney for services in [a] suit secured to him . . . where [he’s]
been discharged prior to the successful occurrence of a contingency,” like a
“judgment or recovery in that particular suit.” Naftzger v. Elam, 41 So. 3d 944,
946 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum
& Zavertnik, P.A. v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383, 1384 (Fla. 1983)). The lien allows
the attorney to recover the reasonable value of the services he rendered before
he was discharged—assuming the contingency occurs. Id. (citing Rosenberg v.
Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016, 1021–22 (Fla. 1982)). “In order for a charging lien to be
imposed, there must first be a contract”—express or implied—“between the
attorney and the client.” Baucom, 428 So. 2d at 1385.
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 6 of 27
6 Opinion of the Court 24-14039
Conrad & Scherer then moved to enforce its charging lien
against Wolf’s share of the settlement. The district court referred
the motion to a magistrate judge, who recommended awarding
Conrad & Scherer almost the full value of its charging lien. Wolf
objected that the retainer agreement didn’t entitle Conrad &
Scherer to any recovery, but the district court adopted the recom-
mendation after “conduct[ing] a de novo review of the entire file.”
In the same order, it directed Wolf and the settlement-fund admin-
istrator to deposit the amount of Conrad & Scherer’s award into
the court registry pending any appeal, which they did two weeks
later. “Th[ose] funds,” the order directs, “shall be subject to distri-
bution to the appropriate party after the exhaustion of any appel-
late review.” Until then, the money was to remain in the court
registry.
Wolf appealed the district court’s order enforcing the charg-
ing lien against the award due to him under the retainer agreement.
At the time of his appeal, however, the district court hadn’t entered
judgment on any of the Does’ claims. We therefore issued a juris-
dictional question asking “whether this appeal is taken from a final
judgment or otherwise appealable order, given that several claims
of the plaintiffs remain pending and the district court’s [ ] order ap-
proving the proposed settlement indicated there would be further
litigation as to [the] Does[.]” Wolf had already filed his opening
brief by then, arguing that we had jurisdiction under the collateral-
order doctrine.
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 7 of 27
24-14039 Opinion of the Court 7
Yet when Wolf responded to our jurisdictional question, he
disavowed his original position. Instead, he asserted that “[t]he
[c]ourt does not appear to have jurisdiction over the appeal” and
that he “regret[ted] having taken up [our] time.” In his view, “the
appeal was necessary [only] to preserve the right to appeal, and to
ensure that the funds were not immediately paid to Conrad &
Scherer . . . and dissipated” (even though they’d been placed in the
court registry “pending appeal”). Conrad & Scherer, for its part,
responded that Wolf’s original position was correct and that we did
have jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine.
We carried the jurisdictional question with the case. Now
we reach it.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“We have a threshold obligation to ensure that we have ju-
risdiction to hear an appeal, for without jurisdiction we cannot pro-
ceed at all in any cause.” Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th
979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (citation modified). “We decide our ap-
pellate jurisdiction in the first instance.” APM Terminals Mobile, LLC
v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, AFL-CIO, Loc. Union 1410, 159 F.4th 869,
871 (11th Cir. 2025) (citing United States v. Cody, 998 F.3d 912, 914
(11th Cir. 2021)); see also Acheron Cap., Ltd., 22 F.4th at 986 (explain-
ing that we review jurisdictional questions de novo).
III. DISCUSSION
“The existence of appellate jurisdiction in a specific federal
court over a given type of case is dependent upon authority ex-
pressly conferred by statute.” Vachon v. Travelers Home & Marine
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 8 of 27
8 Opinion of the Court 24-14039
Ins. Co., 20 F.4th 1343, 1346 (11th Cir. 2021) (citation modified).
Under 28 U.S.C. section 1291, our jurisdiction is usually limited to
appeals from “final decisions” of the district courts. Johnson v. Jones,
515 U.S. 304, 309 (1995) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1291). “A final deci-
sion is typically one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves
nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment.” Acheron
Cap., Ltd., 22 F.4th at 986 (quoting Mayer v. Wall St. Equity Grp., Inc.,
672 F.3d 1222, 1224 (11th Cir. 2012)).
Nevertheless, we may “immediately review orders that ‘fall
into a specific class of interlocutory orders that are made appealable
by statute or jurisprudential exception.’” Grippa v. Rubin, 133 F.4th
1186, 1194 (11th Cir. 2025) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Gar-
den City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000)). One such jurispru-
dential exception is the collateral-order doctrine, which stems from
a “practical construction” of section 1291. SmileDirectClub, LLC v.
Battle, 4 F.4th 1274, 1277–78 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting
Digit. Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867 (1994)).
The district court’s charging-lien order didn’t end any part
of the merits of the sprawling Chiquita multidistrict litigation. To
permit early appeals, the district court did enter partial final judg-
ments as to some plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). But it hasn’t
yet entered a final judgment of any kind as to the Does. So, the
charging-lien order isn’t final. Nor, as we’ll now explain, is it ap-
pealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 9 of 27
24-14039 Opinion of the Court 9
A. Orders Enforcing Attorney Charging Liens
Are Not Collaterally Appealable
Under the collateral-order doctrine, we have jurisdiction
over interlocutory appeals from the “‘small class’ of collateral rul-
ings that, although they do not end the litigation, are appropriately
deemed ‘final.’” Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106
(2009) (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541,
546 (1949)). “Small class” means what it says. The Supreme Court
has “repeatedly stressed that the ‘narrow’ [collateral-order] excep-
tion should stay that way and never be allowed to swallow the gen-
eral rule that a party is entitled to a single appeal, to be deferred
until final judgment has been entered.” Digit. Equip. Corp., 511 U.S.
at 868 (citation modified).
“[T]o fall within the collateral[-]order doctrine and be imme-
diately appealable, a non-final order must satisfy three conditions.”
SmileDirectClub, LLC, 4 F.4th at 1278. “The ‘order must [1] conclu-
sively determine the disputed question, [2] resolve an important is-
sue completely separate from the merits of the action, and [3] be
effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.’” Id.
(quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978)).
These conditions are “stringent,” Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349
(2006) (quoting Digit. Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. at 868), and each one is
“critical [ ] for jurisdiction,” Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v.
S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 559 F.3d 1191, 1199 (11th Cir. 2009). “If
any one [condition] is not met, jurisdiction cannot be in-
voked . . . .” Feldspar Trucking Co. v. Greater Atlanta Shippers’ Ass’n,
849 F.2d 1389, 1392 (11th Cir. 1988).
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 10 of 27
10 Opinion of the Court 24-14039
Importantly, the collateral-order doctrine is a “blunt, cate-
gorical instrument.” Mohawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 112 (quoting
Digit. Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. at 883). “Even [though] we adjudicate
individual cases, . . . we assess the appealability of ‘the entire cate-
gory to which a claim belongs.’” Fleming, 127 F.4th at 845 (quoting
Mohawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 112). Whether a particular order is
appealable under the doctrine depends, then, on whether all three
conditions are satisfied as to the “entire category” of that order.
APM Terminals Mobile, LLC, 159 F.4th at 872 (quoting
SmileDirectClub, LLC, 4 F.4th at 1278); see also Shoop v. Twyford, 596
U.S. 811, 817 n.1 (2022) (assessing whether entire category of
“[t]ransportation orders issued under the All Writs Act” satisfies
each condition). We never “conduct an ‘individualized jurisdic-
tional inquiry’ into the value of allowing [a collateral-order] appeal
on any particular set of facts.” Fleming, 127 F.4th at 845 (quoting
Mohawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 107).
Orders enforcing attorney charging liens arising out of a
contractual or equitable right to payment fail at least the second
and third conditions. 2 They don’t resolve an “important issue” and
aren’t effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
2 When we refer to charging-lien orders, we’re talking about orders enforcing
charging liens arising out of an attorney’s contractual or equitable right to pay-
ment from his client’s recovery. Charging-lien orders, of course, are different
from orders granting attorney’s fees under a federal civil-rights statute, which
are analyzed separately under the collateral-order doctrine. See, e.g., Crowder
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 11 of 27
24-14039 Opinion of the Court 11
1. Charging-Lien Orders Don’t Resolve an “Important Issue”
Charging-lien orders fail the second collateral-order condi-
tion because they do nothing more than resolve an attorney’s enti-
tlement to payment. Although attorneys certainly deserve reason-
able remuneration for their work, their private interest in payment
isn’t the kind of important issue that demands immediate review.
Rights and interests are “important in [the collateral-order]
sense” when they’re “weightier than the societal interests advanced
by the ordinary operation of final judgment principles.” Digit.
Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. at 879 (citation modified). That’s a “high bar”
to clear. Acheron Cap., Ltd., 22 F.4th at 989. “To date, an interloc-
utory order has been deemed ‘important’ enough to justify [collat-
eral-order] review only where ‘some particular value of a high or-
der’” or some “‘substantial public interest’ existed in taking an im-
mediate appeal.” Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1254 (11th Cir.
2014) (first quoting Will, 546 U.S. at 352–53; and then quoting Mic-
cosukee Tribe, 559 F.3d at 1199). 3
v. Hous. Auth. of Atlanta, 908 F.2d 843, 846–48 (11th Cir. 1990) (exercising juris-
diction over an interlocutory appeal taken from an order declining to award
fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988).
3 See also Acheron Cap., Ltd., 22 F.4th at 989 (“An issue is not sufficiently im-
portant unless delaying review until the entry of final judgment would imperil
a substantial public interest or some particular value of a high order[.]” (cita-
tion modified)); In re: Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 965 F.3d 1238, 1246 (11th Cir.
2020) (“An issue is important enough to justify collateral review when it in-
volves a particular value of a high order.” (citation modified)); cf. Grippa, 133
F.4th at 1195 (taking the same approach). Our sister circuits agree. Sec’y of
Lab., Mine Safety & Health Admin. v. Indus. TurnAround Corp., 138 F.4th 1339,
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 12 of 27
12 Opinion of the Court 24-14039
Few rights serve a “substantial public interest” or high-order
value. Cf. Geo Grp., Inc. v. Menocal, 607 U.S. 438, 444 (2026) (“Th[e]
so-called collateral-order doctrine . . . is narrow, stringent, and of
modest scope.” (citation modified)); Fleming, 127 F.4th at 843 (de-
scribing the doctrine as “limited,” “selective,” and so on). Not even
every “valuable” right “central to our adversarial system” will qual-
ify—“substantial public interest[s]” and high-order values are even
more important. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 108–09 (quoting
Will, 546 U.S. at 352–53) (collecting examples).
“Honoring the separation of powers, preserving the effi-
ciency of government . . . , and respecting a state’s dignitary inter-
ests,” for example, are high-order values. Will, 546 U.S. at 352 (ci-
tation modified). In a recent decision recognizing a new category
under the collateral-order doctrine, the Supreme Court held that
federal writs ordering states to transport prisoners implicate “an
1343 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (holding that a category of cases “[wa]s not sufficiently
important to merit [collateral-order] review” where the would-be appellant
failed to show that her interest was “a substantial public interest or some par-
ticular value of a high order” (quoting Mohawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 107));
La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 93 F.4th 310, 319–20 (5th Cir. 2024) (holding
that denials of legislative privilege are “important” and “implicate[ ] ‘a substan-
tial public interest’” because they “deter lawmakers from the uninhibited dis-
charge of their legislative duty . . . to draft legislation, not defend privilege
logs” (quoting Mohawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 109)); United States v. Acad.
Mortg. Corp., 968 F.3d 996, 1004 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Whether a particular category
of district court orders is ‘important’ enough to merit immediate appellate
consideration turns on ‘whether delaying review would imperil a substantial
public interest or some particular value of a high order.’” (citation modified)
(quoting Mohawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 107)).
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 13 of 27
24-14039 Opinion of the Court 13
important question of state sovereignty.” Shoop, 596 U.S. at 817
n.1. So too is there a substantial public interest or high-order value
in defending “the initiative of [government] officials,” Will, 546
U.S. at 352, and “avoid[ing] distraction, overdeterrence, and timid-
ity in [g]overnment service,” Menocal, 607 U.S. at 459 (Alito, J., con-
curring) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)).
The classic type of right that vindicates state sovereignty or
the operational confidence of government officials is an immun-
ity—“a right not to be tried.” SmileDirectClub, LLC, 4 F.4th at 1280
(quoting United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263, 269
(1982)). Accordingly, our collateral-order caselaw permits interloc-
utory appeals of “non-final denials” of “qualified immunity, abso-
lute immunity, and Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Id. at 1282
(citing Will, 546 U.S. at 350); see also Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.
731, 749 (1982) (holding that the president is absolutely immune
from civil damages liability for acts within the outer perimeter of
his official responsibility). In the same vein, our circuit has permit-
ted collateral-order appeals from interlocutory denials of state-law
absolute litigation immunity, characterizing that privilege as “crit-
ically important to the continued functionality of the judicial pro-
cess[.]” Grippa, 133 F.4th at 1195.
Another substantial public interest exists in “mitigating the
government’s advantage over the individual”—its “enormous
prosecutorial power . . . to subject an individual ‘to embarrass-
ment, expense[,] and ordeal[.]’” Will, 546 U.S. at 352–53 (quoting
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 14 of 27
14 Opinion of the Court 24-14039
Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 661 (1977)). To that end, a de-
fendant may take an appeal from orders authorizing involuntary
medication, Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 176 (2003); rejecting
Speech or Debate or colorable Double Jeopardy defenses, Helstoski
v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 506 (1979) (Speech or Debate); Abney, 431
U.S. at 661–62 & n.8 (Double Jeopardy)4; or refusing to reduce bail,
Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 6 (1951). So too may a prisoner awaiting
postconviction relief appeal an order denying bond. Pagan v. United
States, 353 F.3d 1343, 1345 n.5, 1346 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Dot-
son v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 78 (6th Cir. 1990)). 5 Relatedly, the collat-
eral-order doctrine allows interlocutory appeals of orders “re-
vok[ing] protections that conceal a party’s identity” when revoking
those protections exposes the party to a “serious ‘danger of physical
harm,’” because that harm affects the “important issue” of “the
[party’s] access to the judicial system.” In re: Chiquita Brands Int’l,
Inc., 965 F.3d 1238, 1246 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Doe v. Frank, 951
F.2d 320, 324 (11th Cir. 1992)).
4 “The appealability of a double jeopardy claim depends upon its being at least
colorable”—that is, non-frivolous. Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317,
322 (1984) (citation modified); see also United States v. Gulledge, 739 F.2d 582,
585 (11th Cir. 1984) (“After the Supreme Court’s holding [in Richardson] . . .
double jeopardy claims following a mistrial resulting from a hung jury are, as
a matter of law, no longer colorable.”).
5 Still, a certificate of appealability remains a “jurisdictional prerequisite” for
our review of any postconviction appeal. Pagan, 353 F.3d at 1346 & n.6 (citing
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337 (2003)); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 15 of 27
24-14039 Opinion of the Court 15
In contrast, we rarely apply the collateral-order doctrine to
purely private rights, no matter what defense or value they vindi-
cate. E.g., APM Terminals Mobile, LLC, 159 F.4th at 873 (“[P]rivate
agreements ‘are [not] likely . . . to supply the basis of a collateral
order appeal.’” (alterations in original) (quoting Acheron Cap., Ltd.,
22 F.4th at 990)); Acheron Cap., Ltd., 22 F.4th at 990 (holding that
“freedom of contract” was an insufficiently important interest). 6
We’ve never outright “decide[d] [ ] that a privately conferred right
could never supply the basis of a collateral order appeal, [but] there
are surely sound reasons for treating such rights differently.” Digit.
Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. at 879 (citation modified).
And that makes sense. Private rights regularly fail the “im-
portance” analysis because they’re definitionally not tied to any
public interest or value. That parties have bargained for a right is
“barely a prima facie indication that the right secured is ‘important’
to the benefited party . . . let alone that . . . it qualifies as ‘im-
portant’ in [the collateral-order] sense[.]” Id. Yes, savvy litigants
6 As the Supreme Court noted in Digital Equipment, we treat private rights dif-
ferently if they originate from a federal statute. Digit. Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. at
880 n.7. The Federal Arbitration Act, for example, authorizes immediate ap-
peal when a district court declines to compel arbitration. Id. (citing 9 U.S.C.
§ 16(a)(1)). “That courts must give full effect to [ ] express congressional judg-
ment[s] that particular . . . private rights be vindicable immediately, however,
by no means suggests that they should now be more ready to make similar
judgments for themselves.” Id. Congress knows how to create finality excep-
tions. Where it hasn’t done so for a particular private right, we must “resist[]
efforts to stretch [section] 1291,” which “erode the finality principle and dis-
serve its objectives.” Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. 23, 37 (2017).
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 16 of 27
16 Opinion of the Court 24-14039
can usually recharacterize their private rights in some broadly ap-
plicable way. But rarely will denying interlocutory review “dis-
cernibl[y] chill” some private right to the point of public concern,
even in the aggregate. Cf. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 110.
In Digital Equipment, for instance, the Supreme Court held
that the “right not to be tried” inherent in a settlement agreement
wasn’t “important” enough to warrant collateral-order review.
Digit. Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. at 881. The appellant urged that “set-
tlement-agreement ‘immunities’ . . . advance the public policy fa-
voring voluntary resolution of disputes,” but the Court rejected
this view because it “defie[d] common sense to maintain that par-
ties’ readiness to settle [would] be significantly dampened (or the
corresponding public interest impaired)” simply because review of
private settlement rights would have to wait until final judgment.
Id. Mohawk Industries relied on the same logic in a slightly different
context. Even though the attorney-client privilege “serve[d]
broader public interests,” denying early review of orders denying
the privilege “d[id] not meaningfully reduce the ex ante incentives
for full and frank consultations between clients and counsel.” Mo-
hawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 108, 110 (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United
States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981)). Part of the reason why was that
most district-court privilege rulings “involve the routine applica-
tion of settled legal principles,” presenting only a “small risk that
the law will be misapplied.” Id. at 110. Because the risk of error
was small, even aggregating the harm of erroneous privilege rul-
ings didn’t implicate a “broader public interest.” See id. at 108
(quoting Upjohn Co., 449 U.S. at 389).
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 17 of 27
24-14039 Opinion of the Court 17
Measured against the “substantial public interest” and high-
order values vindicated by state immunities and constitutional
rights, the issue a charging-lien order resolves isn’t an important
one. “This is admittedly a normative judgment[.]” SmileDirectClub,
LLC, 4 F.4th at 1282. But at bottom, a charging-lien order vindi-
cates nothing but an attorney’s contractual or equitable expecta-
tion of reasonable payment for services rendered. And “the expec-
tations . . . of private parties” aren’t “weightier than the societal in-
terests advanced by the ordinary operation of final judgment prin-
ciples.” Digit. Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. at 879–80. An attorney’s con-
tractual or equitable interest in payment in no way protects state
sovereignty, shields the “initiative of [government] officials,” or
“mitigat[es] the government’s advantage over the individual.”
Will, 546 U.S. at 352–53; see also SmileDirectClub, LLC, 4 F.4th at
1280.
Practically speaking, an attorney’s right to recover payment
may be “treated as [a] contract suit[ ], whether [the right arises] in
quantum meruit or [is] based on an explicit contract.”
RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS § 42
cmt. b(ii) (2000); see also, e.g., Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d
559, 561 (Fla. 1986) (holding that Florida charging liens depend on
the existence of a contract). And again, we’ve repeatedly held that
even private rights and expectations for which parties expressly
contract touch no “substantial public interest” or high-order value.
See Acheron Cap., Ltd., 22 F.4th at 990; APM Terminals Mobile, LLC,
159 F.4th at 873. Indeed, Acheron Capital held as much with respect
to a right arguably analogous to a right to payment. There, the
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 18 of 27
18 Opinion of the Court 24-14039
would-be appellant had bargained for a right of last refusal—a right
to channel certain fractional interests to itself in preference to any
other bidder, which would have safeguarded its investments. Ach-
eron Cap., Ltd., 22 F.4th at 984–85, 990. During postjudgment re-
ceivership proceedings, the district court ordered that the court-
appointed trustee could sell those interests without affording the
appellant its “last look,” effectively extinguishing that right. Id.
at 984–85. We acknowledged that “it [was] undoubtedly important
to [the appellant] that its contracts [we]re correctly interpreted and
that its investments retain[ed] their full value.” Id. at 990. Never-
theless, we held that the private rights and interests in “freedom of
contract” “do[ ] not rise to the level of importance needed for
recognition under [section] 1291.” Id. (second alteration in origi-
nal) (quoting Digit. Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. at 878). The payment
rights vindicated by charging-lien orders fall just as short.
Charging-lien orders also don’t resolve an important issue
because of the relatively “small risk that the law will be misap-
plied.” See Mohawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 110. Of course, it mat-
ters that attorneys get their just due. Our legal system would no
doubt suffer if district courts routinely imposed erroneous charging
liens on client judgments, “systematically underenforc[ed]” attor-
ney charging-lien rights, or regularly awarded too much or too lit-
tle in fees. See id. at 110 n.2. Yet—unsurprisingly—“we have no
indication that this is the case.” Id. Whether a charging lien exists
is usually a straightforward matter of state statute or common law.
Moreover, whether the amount of the lien is reasonable is an issue
on which “[any] court, either trial or appellate, is itself an expert.”
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 19 of 27
24-14039 Opinion of the Court 19
Norman v. Hous. Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir.
1988) (quoting Campbell v. Green, 112 F.2d 143, 144 (5th Cir. 1940)).
“[T]he district court has wide discretion” to determine an “appro-
priate fee”—discretion we rarely disturb so long as we can conduct
a “meaningful review.” Id. at 1304. Nothing so much as suggests
that our district courts so often flub their charging-lien rulings that
the category of those orders affects any public interest—much less
a substantial one.
We’re left to conclude that charging-lien orders just don’t
resolve “important issues.” The order on appeal therefore fails the
second collateral-order condition.
2. Charging-Lien Orders Aren’t Effectively Unreviewable
After Final Judgment
“The third condition of the collateral-order doctrine [ ] asks
whether a right or claim can be vindicated adequately on appeal
following final judgment . . . .” SmileDirectClub, LLC, 4 F.4th at
1282. Even if the category of charging-lien orders implicated a sub-
stantial public interest, most orders in that category wouldn’t be
effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
The phrase “vindicated adequately” asks whether a right or
claim “wrongfully denied would be altogether lost and unrecover-
able.” Fleming, 127 F.4th at 852. Again, immunities are the classic
example. An immunity is a right not to be tried at all; if a defendant
asserting an immunity is tried anyway, the immunity is “effectively
lost” even if the defendant prevails on an appeal after final judg-
ment. Id. at 853 (quoting Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526). An appellate
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 20 of 27
20 Opinion of the Court 24-14039
court would be powerless to un-ring the “proverbial bell.” Digit.
Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. at 872. The same reasoning applies to, for
instance, a criminal defendant’s right not to be involuntarily medi-
cated. Sell, 539 U.S. at 176–77. “By the time of trial, [the defendant]
will have undergone [the] forced medication—the very harm that
he seeks to avoid.” Id.
Charging-lien rights aren’t analogous. Unlike involuntary-
medication orders, charging-lien orders carry little risk of lasting
harm. A lien creates mere civil liability. Cf. Menocal, 607 U.S. at
447 (“[T]he right to a finding of non-liability stands on a different
footing: It can be effectively vindicated after a trial has occurred,
through the reversal of an adverse final judgment.”). It can be ex-
tinguished as easily as it’s imposed, and money can be returned or
awarded. Plus, we can review charging-lien orders along with all
other fee issues after the judgment. The cause of action for a lien
“arises only upon the successful occurrence of [a] contingency”—a
judgment or a settlement. Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016, 1022
(Fla. 1982). So long as an attorney gives “timely notice” of his
charging lien before judgment, see Daniel Mones, P.A., 486 So. 2d at
561, a district court may wait until after the entry of judgment to
determine entitlement and amount, cf. Zaklama v. Mount Sinai Med.
Ctr., 906 F.2d 650, 651 (11th Cir. 1990) (affirming district court or-
der enforcing attorney contingency fee contract and awarding
quantum meruit fees on an executed judgment).
Handled that way, a charging-lien order is reviewable on the
same terms as orders in any ordinary postjudgment fee litigation.
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 21 of 27
24-14039 Opinion of the Court 21
We routinely hear appeals from fee orders entered after final judg-
ment. In those cases, we “treat the postjudgment proceeding as a
free-standing litigation” commenced by the “final judgment.” See
Thomas v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n, 594 F.3d 823, 829 (11th Cir.
2010) (quoting Ass’n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now v. Ill. State Bd. of
Elections, 75 F.3d 304, 306 (7th Cir. 1996)). Once the district court
disposes of all the issues that “initially sparked the postjudgment
proceedings,” its order is “deemed final.” Mayer, 672 F.3d at 1224
(citing Thomas, 594 F.3d at 829). Of course, when an order is final,
we simply review it under section 1291. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (“The
courts of appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final
decisions of the district courts of the United States[.]”). That keeps
postjudgment proceedings administrable. Indeed, “to hold other-
wise invites litigants to appeal every attorney’s fee order, even if
other requests remain outstanding, resulting in a proliferation of
piecemeal or repetitious appeals.” Mayer, 672 F.3d at 1223 (dismiss-
ing appeal from postjudgment order denying an attorney’s fee mo-
tion where another fee motion “remained pending before the dis-
trict court”).7
It’s possible that despite the availability of regular postjudg-
ment appeal, some fraction of charging-lien orders might “never-
theless harm individual litigants in ways that are ‘only imperfectly
7 We note too that “[o]ur [c]ircuit and others recognize the right of an attorney
to appeal even when the client does not, if the attorney is independently ag-
grieved so as to be the real party in interest.” In re BellSouth Corp., 334 F.3d
941, 955 n.6 (11th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases).
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 22 of 27
22 Opinion of the Court 24-14039
reparable.’” Mohawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 112 (quoting Digit.
Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. at 872). But not even that would “justify mak-
ing all such orders immediately appealable as of right under [sec-
tion] 1291.” Id. Collateral-order appealability is, after all, categori-
cal. Fleming, 127 F.4th at 845. That “some orders” in a category
happen to satisfy all three conditions doesn’t permit interlocutory
appeals of orders in the category that don’t. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 439 (1985) (reaching this conclusion with re-
spect to the category of orders disqualifying counsel in civil cases).
* * *
Even if charging-lien orders implicated “important issues,”
they wouldn’t be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
Accordingly, they flunk the second and third collateral-order con-
ditions. We lack jurisdiction over them.
B. Lowe Doesn’t Control
Although it’s clear that charging-lien orders aren’t appeala-
ble under the collateral-order doctrine, the former Fifth Circuit
reached the opposite conclusion almost five decades ago in Lowe v.
Pate Stevedoring Co., 595 F.2d 256 (5th Cir. 1979). But Lowe’s con-
clusion, which has never been cited by a single court in our circuit
in all those years, has been abrogated.
The Lowe plaintiff brought an “unfair representation case”
against his employer and his union. Id. at 257. His case proceeded
to judgment and he received damages, even though “[e]quitable
aspects of the case . . . relating to [his] prayer for reinstatement”
were “still pending.” Id. The plaintiff’s attorney sought a charging
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 23 of 27
24-14039 Opinion of the Court 23
lien against the damages judgment, which the district court only
partially granted. Id. The attorney immediately appealed even
though the reinstatement “aspects” of the case were still pending.
Id. The former Fifth Circuit resolved its interlocutory jurisdiction
in a single sentence: “Under the circumstances of this case we think
the decision awarding an attorney’s fee . . . is a collateral order
within the purview of [Cohen]”—the Supreme Court’s first try at
defining the scope of the collateral-order doctrine. Id. (quoting Co-
hen, 337 U.S. at 546).
Lowe has been abrogated by intervening Supreme Court de-
cisions and at least one of our en banc decisions. Under our prior-
panel-precedent rule, “we are bound to follow a prior panel’s hold-
ing unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of
abrogation by an opinion of the Supreme Court or of this [c]ourt
sitting en banc.” United States v. Gillis, 938 F.3d 1181, 1198 (11th
Cir. 2019). “This can happen ‘where the Supreme Court has clearly
set forth a new standard to evaluate’ a claim or issue.” Stanley v.
City of Sanford, 83 F.4th 1333, 1340 (11th Cir. 2023) (quoting United
States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008)), aff’d, 606 U.S.
46 (2025).
The Supreme Court has set forth a new standard for evalu-
ating the collateral-order doctrine since Cohen—the foundation for
Lowe’s one-sentence conclusion. The new standard differs from Co-
hen in two ways. First, after Cohen, the Supreme Court made clear
that the collateral-order conditions apply to the entire category of
challenged orders. Neither Cohen nor Lowe applied the conditions
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 24 of 27
24 Opinion of the Court 24-14039
that way. Cohen expressly stated that although it was holding “this
order appealable,” it “d[id] not mean that every order fixing secu-
rity [was] subject to appeal.” Cohen, 337 U.S. at 546–47. Following
Cohen, Lowe concluded that the challenged charging-lien order was
appealable “[u]nder the circumstances of this case.” Lowe, 595 F.2d
at 257. It didn’t attempt to define a category or suggest that its
holding applied to all charging-lien orders.
Lowe’s case-focused analysis is contrary to the standard set
out by the Supreme Court post-Lowe. “In fashioning a rule of ap-
pealability under [section] 1291, . . . we look to categories of cases,
not to particular injustices.” Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S.
517, 529 (1988); see also Digit. Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. at 868 (“[T]he
issue of appealability under [section] 1291 is to be determined for
the entire category to which a claim belongs . . . .”); Mohawk Indus.,
Inc., 558 U.S. at 107 (same); Menocal, 607 U.S. at 444 (“We identify
[collateral-order] decisions by category, not case-specific circum-
stances.”); see also SmileDirectClub, LLC, 4 F.4th at 1282 (same prin-
ciple, citing Mohawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 107). The categorical
standard is no empty formality. Without it, the collateral-order
doctrine mires appellate courts in individualized determinations
and inevitably enlarges the number and kinds of exceptions to the
final-order rule. That’s exactly what the Supreme Court has told
us to avoid. See Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 472 U.S. at 439 (“This
Court . . . has expressly rejected efforts to reduce the finality re-
quirement of [section] 1291 to a case-by-case determination of
whether a particular ruling should be subject to appeal.”). So,
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 25 of 27
24-14039 Opinion of the Court 25
Lowe’s approach isn’t reconcilable with the Supreme Court’s cate-
gorical standard for collateral-order review.
Second, the Supreme Court has made it a “non-negotiable”
condition that the category of challenged orders “be effectively un-
reviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Menocal, 607 U.S. at
444 (quoting Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. at 522). Cohen, however,
didn’t state or regard effective unreviewability as a mandatory con-
dition. See Cohen, 337 U.S. at 546 (stating the conditions of collat-
eral-order review without including effective unreviewability).
But every post-Lowe Supreme Court decision does—expressly.
E.g., Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 472 U.S. at 431; Van Cauwenberghe, 486
U.S. at 522; Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 800
(1989); Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495, 498 (1989); P.R. Aq-
ueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144
(1993); Digit. Equip. Corp., 511 U.S. at 878–80; Will, 546 U.S. at 349;
Mohawk Indus., Inc., 558 U.S. at 108–12; Menocal, 607 U.S. at 451. So
do we. SmileDirectClub, LLC, 4 F.4th at 1278.
Nothing in Lowe suggests that it assessed charging-lien or-
ders against the modern standard of effective unreviewability. In-
deed, for the reasons we’ve explained, we don’t see how it could.
What’s clear, then, is that the new standard set out by the
Supreme Court (and our en banc decision) for collateral-order re-
view has undermined Lowe’s “more summary approach” to the
point of abrogation. United States v. Lightsey, 169 F.4th 1241, 1252
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 26 of 27
26 Opinion of the Court 24-14039
(11th Cir. 2026) (citing Archer, 531 F.3d at 1352). With Lowe abro-
gated, we hold that charging-lien orders aren’t appealable under
the collateral-order doctrine.
IV. CONCLUSION
Orders enforcing charging liens arising out of an attorney’s
contractual or equitable right to payment from his client’s recovery
resolve no “important issue” and don’t become effectively unre-
viewable after final judgment. That means they’re not covered by
the collateral-order doctrine. And since there’s been no final judg-
ment as to the Does, nothing else gives us jurisdiction over this
case. We therefore DISMISS this appeal for lack of appellate juris-
diction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
USCA11 Case: 24-14039 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026 Page: 27 of 27
24-14039 JILL PRYOR, J., Concurring 1
JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I agree with the majority opinion that we must dismiss this
appeal of a district court order on a law firm’s motion to enforce a
charging lien because we lack appellate jurisdiction. For an order
to qualify as immediately appealable under the collateral order doc-
trine, it must (1) “conclusively determine the disputed question,”
(2) “resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits
of the action,” and (3) “be effectively unreviewable on appeal from
a final judgment.” SmileDirectClub, LLC v. Battle, 4 F.4th 1274, 1278
(11th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (citation modified).
As the majority opinion correctly concludes in Part III.A.2.,
the district court’s charging-lien order can be effectively reviewed
on appeal from the final judgment in this case. Because the third
prong of the collateral-order test is not satisfied, we lack appellate
jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed. We need not reach
the question whether a charging-lien order resolves an “important
issue” under the second prong of the collateral-order test. I would
not address it. I therefore join the majority opinion except for Part
III.A.I.