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

Texas Now on Judicial Hellholes® “Watch List” as Political Lawsuits, Junk Science Spread

The American Tort Reform Foundation today placed Texas on the Judicial Hel...

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...

Search Resources

Search through all of ATRA's Amicus Briefs, Reports, and Other Resources around Contingent Fee
Search All
States
Status
Post Types
Date
Lyle & Bruso v. State Farm
(Ok., filed July 9, 2026): Arguing that allowing the district court’s so-called “protective order” to stand would make Oklahoma a significant nationa...
Oklahoma
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Benavides v. Tesla
(11th Circ., filed July 9, 2026): Arguing that the judgment holds manufacturers to unreasonable standards that will deter innovation and development ...
11th Circuit
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Drake v. Bayer
(9th Circ., filed May 26, 2026): Arguing that rehearing should be granted to clarify the standards applicable to establishing class-wide injury.  The...
9th Circuit
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
In Re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation
(6th Circ., filed May 21, 2026): Arguing that Comcast’s limits on class certification provide essential protections for American businesses and inves...
6th Circuit
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, et. al.
(U.S., filed May 18, 2026): Arguing the state law does not provide a mechanism to recover damages for costs attributed to global climate change. Clim...
SCOTUS
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Veto Request, House Bill 26-1236, “Arbitration Reform”
...
Colorado
Second Letter Urging Veto of HB 449 / SB 229 Following Rejection of Amendments
...
Virginia
Comment by Leading Defense Bar and Business Groups Opposing Nonlawyer Ownership and Fee-Sharing
Tennessee Supreme Court comment by leading business and defense bar groups opposing nonlawyer law firm ownership – 4.30.2026Download ...
Tennessee
Blade v. Sig Saurer
(E.D. Pa., filed April 6, 2026): Arguing that the court should grant Sig Saurer’s motion for reconsideration because Mallory upends the jurisdictiona...
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • Case Not Yet Decided iconCase Not Yet Decided
Suquilanda v. Skyway Roofing, Inc.
(Ma., filed March 18, 2026): Urging the court to decline to recognize a new cause of action permitting employees of a subcontractor to sue a contract...
Massachusetts
  • 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.
© 2026 ATRA. All rights reserved.