concurring
in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the district court’s determination that the attorney was entitled to a superpriority under 26 U.S.C. § 6323(b)(8) over the outstanding federal tax liens in the stipulated amount of $2,400. It appears from the record that the attorney’s services were necessary to obtain the return of the money by the state authorities.
I do not agree, however, that the attorney has a valid attorney’s lien. I am reluctant to disagree with the district court over a question of Nebraska law. Nonetheless, I do not agree that the seizure of money pursuant to a criminal investigation and its holding by the clerk of the state district court as evidence in the criminal prosecution necessarily makes the state an “adverse party” for purposes of the attorney’s *520lien statute, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 7-108 (Reissue 1983). In the absence of forfeiture proceedings or some claim of ownership by the state, I would argue that, at least for purposes of the attorney’s lien statute, the clerk of the state district court does occupy a position analogous to that of a court-appointed receiver. I would hold that the attorney did not have a valid attorney’s lien in the money held by the clerk of the state district court and, accordingly, would reverse the district court’s judgment to the extent that it holds the attorney’s lien is valid and grants the perfected attorney’s lien priority over the outstanding federal tax liens.