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

No related legislation or reform items to display.



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
Exxon Mobil v. New Hampshire
(U.S. Supreme Court, filed February 22, 2016): Arguing that Exxon’s liability for selling MTBE-Oxygenated gasoline should be preempted by the federal ...
New Hampshire
  • Court Denied Cert iconCourt Denied Cert
Konstantin v. 630 Third Avenue Associates, et. al.
(New York, filed in February of 2016): Arguing that consolidation of asbestos-based personal injury actions for trial violates CPLR 602(a) where the a...
New York
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Certainteed Corporation v. Fletcher
(Ga., filed in March of 2016): Arguing that manufacturers should not be held liable for negligence in asbestos cases involving take-home exposure. ...
Georgia
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Microsoft v. Baker
(U.S., filed March 18, 2016): Arguing that a federal court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the plai...
SCOTUS
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
In Re Lipitor
(3rd Cir., filed March 28, 2016): Arguing that antitrust cases require pleadings to include sufficient facts to establish a plausible foundation for t...
3rd Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
In Re Trinity Industries Inc.
(5th Cir., filed March 28, 2016): Arguing that if allowed to stand, the decision below would produce deep regulatory uncertainty for manufacturers and...
5th Circuit
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co.
(Tenn., filed April 15, 2016): Arguing that Tennessee’s statutory limit on punitive damages is constitutional.  The statutory limit does not infringe ...
Tennessee
  • Court Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled in Favor of ATRA's Position
Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
(11th Cir., filed April 22, 2016).  Arguing that reliance on general, non-specific verdicts to foreclose litigation of highly specific issues that may...
11th Circuit
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position
Davis v. Honeywell Inc.
(Cal., filed April 29, 2016): Arguing that the court should clarify what constitutes a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of developing ...
California
  • Court Denied Cert iconCourt Denied Cert
Beason v. I.E. Miller
(Ok., filed June 6, 2016): Arguing that the statutory limits on noneconomic damages are constitutional and does not violate a person’s right to a jury...
Oklahoma
  • Court Ruled Against ATRA's Position iconCourt Ruled Against ATRA's Position



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.