(Nv., filed August 8, 2024): Arguing that judicial review of ballot initiative petitions is limited to the requirements of NRS 295.009 and Article 19 of the Nevada Constitution—it does not
include policy considerations. Additionally, there are strong policy reasons for a 20% cap on contingency fees including the fact that overlitigation is a drain on Nevada’s economy, excessive tort litigation threatens Nevadans’ access to competent healthcare, and certain Nevada lawyers benefit from a limitless contingency fee system to the detriment of injured parties. Lastly, Nevadans support a 20% cap on contingency fees even after hearing Appellants’ policy arguments against the initiative petition.
