Contingent Fee

A contingent fee is a lawyer’s fee that is based upon a percentage of the money awarded to the client. Generally, contingent fees are on-third of the total recovery. The widespread use of the contingent fee is unique to the American civil justice system. Contingent fees allow plaintiffs with little money to seek redress in the courts because the attorney bears the financial risk of bringing a lawsuit in exchange for a percentage of the recovery, if any. In recent years, the current system has benefited lawyers at the expense of their clients.

The Problem

The contingent fee system invites abuse because it encourages lawyers with a financial interest in the outcome of a case to try meritless claims or ask for unreasonably high awards. Contingent fees are generally one-third of a total award, even when, as is often the case, attorneys bear no risk in taking a case. Attorneys today seek out cases that can be settled easily, with little work, or can be decided under no-fault laws. The one-third contingent fee pay-off for seeking such cases is disproportionate and discourages lawyers from taking more difficult, work-intensive, cases.

ATRA’s Position

ATRA supports legislation that limits the use of contingent fees in cases where a legitimate risk of non-recovery exists, and requires an hourly fee in cases where no legitimate risk of non-recovery exists, such as cases involving automobile accidents and other incidents where the parties are likely to settle, and cases where strict liability is imposed, such that no liability question exists to be resolved at trial.

ATRA also supports legislation that provides a sliding scale for the award of contingent fees. A sliding scale removes some of the incentive for lawyers to seek excessive jury awards, while preserving for plaintiffs the access to the civil justice system that the contingent fee system provides.

ATRA also supports legislation requiring an attorney to provide clients up front with an estimate of what the hourly rate for a case would be versus the applicable contingent fee charge. The client would be free to choose the payment method under which they would like to proceed. After disposal of a case, an attorney would disclose the number of hours actually spent resolving the case and the amount of the hourly fee or the contingent fees due. Fully informed clients would be able to compare attorneys’ fees and go in to fee arrangements with realistic expectations.

Search Through ATRA Reforms

Search through all of ATRA's reforms around Contingent Fee
Contingent Fee Reform: HB 350 (1996).
Prohibits the assessment of contingent fees for expert witnesses.  The comprehensive 1996 tort reform law violated the doctrine of separation of power...
Ohio
Contingent Fee Reform: HB 350 (1996).
Prohibits the assessment of contingent fees for expert witnesses.  The comprehensive 1996 tort reform law violated the doctrine of separation of power...
Ohio
Transparency in Private Attorney Contracting: S.B. 648 (2014)
Ensures that should the state award contingency fee contracts that they are awarded openly and transparently and that the state would receive maximum ...
North Carolina
Transparency in Private Attorney Contracts
This bill codifies the Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Meredith v. Ieyoub.  It says the state cannot compensate attorneys on a contingency fee bas...
Louisiana


Contingent Fee News and Press

Explore ATRA's most recent press releases and blogs around Contingent Fee

American Tort Reform Association Responds to Confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as HHS Secretary

Today, the U.S. Senate confirmed Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to serve as Secret...

RFK Jr.’s Trial Lawyer Ties Raise Red Flags

This was originally published by The Well News.Robert F. Kennedy J...

ATRA Commends Missouri for Bipartisan Passage of ‘Transparency Bill’

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 29, 2018 – The American Tort Reform Association (AT...

Search Resources

Search through all of ATRA's Amicus Briefs, Reports, and Other Resources around Contingent Fee
Search All
States
Status
Post Types
Date
Sanctionable: The unsupported, exaggerated, and suspicious claims plaguing our nation’s courts
There is growing concern that many lawsuits filed in our nation’s courts are unsupported, involve manufactured or exaggerated injuries, or stem from ...
California, Florida, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania
Lyon v. Riverside Methodist Hospital et. al.
(OH., filed October 7, 2025): Arguing that the Court should review the lower court’s decision because the Court should comprehensively address the co...
Ohio
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Atlas Turner, Inc. v. Welch
(U.S., filed September 22, 2025): Arguing the Court should review the use of receiverships by the South Carolina asbestos court.  The receivership pr...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Letter to House Judiciary Committee re: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Stone Slab Products Act
This letter was submitted on behalf of the American Tort Reform Association to express our support for H.R. 5437, the “Protection of Lawful Commerce ...
California
Letter to DOJ re: RFI on State Laws Having Significant Adverse Effects on the National Economy or Interstate Commerce
Re: Request for Information on State Laws Having Significant Adverse Effects on the National Economy or Significant Adverse Effects on Interstate Com...
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish
(U.S., filed September 12, 2025): Arguing that the Louisiana coastal litigation proves the importance of federal officer removal.  The Government law...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Suncor Energy Inc., et. al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, et. al.
(U.S., filed September 12, 2025): Urging the Court to grant the petition for certiari.  Arguing that global climate change is not traditional state t...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Sommerville v. Union Carbide and Covestro LLC
(4th Circ., filed September 9, 2025): Supporting rehearing en banc. Arguing that Article III standing requires an injury that is concrete and particu...
4th Circuit
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Ortiz v. Daimler Trucks North America LLC
(CA., filed September 4, 2025): Urging the court to review the lower court’s decision because in combination with the decision in Gilead, it threaten...
California
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Carey, II et. al.
(KY., filed August 26, 2025) : Arguing that in a wide range of cases, identification of suspicious claims activity has led to investigations that hav...
Kentucky
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided



The American Tort Reform Association is the nation’s first organization dedicated exclusively to reforming the civil justice system through education and legislative enactment.

To receive occasional updates from ATRA, enter your email address:
By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and consent to receive updates.
© 2025 ATRA. All rights reserved.