Personal Injury Lawyer Cost

Q: What percentage do personal injury lawyers take?

Standard contingency fee is 33⅓% pre-suit and 40% after a lawsuit is filed. Catastrophic and appeal cases often run 40–50%. The percentage applies to gross settlement before liens and costs.

Q: What costs do I pay besides the attorney's percentage?

Case costs: filing fees ($300–$500), service of process ($75–$200), expert witness fees ($2K–$15K per expert), depositions ($800–$3K each), accident reconstruction ($5K–$25K), medical record fees ($1–$3/page), trial exhibits, court reporter fees. Liens: Medicare, Medicaid, ERISA plans, hospital liens all come off the gross. Use our net settlement calculator to estimate take-home.

Contingency fees, case costs, and what you actually pay a PI attorney in 2026. State sliding-scale rules (CA, FL, NY), what to negotiate, and what costs come out of your share. Based on standard fee agreements and state bar disciplinary rules.

Reviewed by Leonard Goldberg, Editor · Last updated August 24, 2026

The Standard Contingency Fee

Most personal injury attorneys work on contingency — no upfront fee; you pay nothing if you lose. The standard fee tiers in 2026:

Stage	Typical Fee	When It Applies
Pre-suit settlement	33⅓%	Settles via demand letter / negotiation
Post-suit settlement	40%	Lawsuit filed; settles before trial
Trial / verdict	40–45%	Case actually tried to verdict
Appeal	+5–10%	Appellate work on top of trial fee

California’s Med-Mal Fee Limit (Bus. & Prof. § 6146)

California is one of the few states that caps attorney fees by statute — but only in medical malpractice cases, and the rule changed. AB 35 replaced the old MICRA sliding scale effective January 1, 2023. Two flat limits apply now:

When the case resolves	Maximum fee
Settled before a complaint or arbitration demand is filed	25%
Settlement, arbitration, or judgment after filing	33%
Above those limits	Only if a court or arbitrator grants a motion showing good cause

If you find a 40 / 33⅓ / 25 / 15% scale for California, it is out of date

That four-tier scale was the law until the end of 2022 and still appears across law firm pages and fee guides. It was replaced by AB 35 (Stats. 2022, Ch. 17), and the current text of § 6146 no longer contains it. On a $1.2 million recovery the difference is real: the old scale produced roughly $252,000 in fees, the current rule allows up to $396,000 if the case was filed.

Note the limits apply to medical malpractice only. An ordinary California injury case — a car accident, a fall — has no statutory fee cap at all; § 6147 says instead that the fee is negotiable and must be stated in a written agreement you get a copy of.

What Your State Actually Allows

Only 6 of 51 US jurisdictions cap contingency fees in an ordinary injury case. In the other 45, the only limit is that the fee must be reasonable — which is another way of saying the percentage is negotiable, and most people never ask. Medical malpractice is the common exception and is capped far more often, so it has its own column.

State	Ordinary injury case	Medical malpractice	Source
Alaska	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Alaska R. Prof. C. 1.5(a))	no special rule — AS 09.55.549 caps pain-and-suffering ($250k/$400k), not fees	Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a)-(c); Alaska R. Civ. P. 82; AS 09.55.549
Heads upAlaska is a "loser pays" state: under Civil Rule 82 the losing party may owe the other side's attorney fees; RPC 1.5(b) requires written notice.
Alabama	no statutory cap; only "clearly excessive" (Rule 1.5(a), 9 factors)	no percentage cap; § 6-5-543 only governs fees when future damages are paid in installments	Ala. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a); Peebles v. Miley, 439 So.2d 137 (Ala. 1983)
Heads upAlabama's standard is not "reasonable" but "clearly excessive" (Rule 1.5(a)) — the bar for challenging a fee is higher than in most states.
Arkansas	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Ark. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a))	no special rule; Medical Malpractice Act (16-114-201 et seq.) has no fee provision	Ark. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a); Martin v. Humphrey, 558 S.W.3d 370 (Ark. 2018)
Heads up33 1/3% is NOT an AR cap: Issue 4 (2016) and Issue 1 (2018) were both blocked; in 2018 the court wrote expressly 'no such cap presently exists'.
Arizona	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard under ER 1.5(a)	no percentage cap; A.R.S. § 12-568: court reviews the fee on any party's motion	A.R.S. § 12-568; Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, ER 1.5(a)
Heads upMedical malpractice: either party may ask the court under A.R.S. § 12-568 to review the fee's reasonableness; a ruling follows within 20 days.
California	no statutory cap; § 6147 expressly states the fee is negotiable	YES: § 6146 — 25% before filing, 33% after; more only by court order (AB 35)	Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6146, 6147; Cal. R. Prof. C. 1.5
Heads upAB 35 replaced the MICRA sliding scale on 1/1/2023: older sources still show 40/33.3/25/15% — today it is 25% before filing, 33% after.
Colorado	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Colo. RPC 1.5(a))	no special rule — the Health Care Availability Act contains no fee provision	Colo. RPC 1.5(a),(c); C.R.S. 13-64-302; C.R.S. 8-43-403(1)
Heads upC.R.S. 13-64-302 caps DAMAGES, not fees — it is often miscited as a fee cap. Workers' comp: over 25% of the disputed benefits is unreasonable.
Connecticut	sliding scale: 33 1/3 / 25 / 20 / 15% per $300,000, then 10% (§ 52-251c(b))	no special rule — the same sliding scale also applies to medical malpractice	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-251c(a)-(f)
Heads upThe scale can be waived in complex cases (bold-print clause + notarized acknowledgment), but then 33 1/3% total is the max (§ 52-251c(c)-(f)).
District of Columbia	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (D.C. RPC 1.5(a))	no special rule	D.C. R. Prof'l Conduct 1.5(a); D.C. Code § 32-1530(c), (f)
Heads upWorkers' comp exception: never more than 20% of the benefit obtained, and every fee needs agency approval (D.C. Code § 32-1530(c), (f)).
Delaware	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Del. RPC 1.5(a))	35% / 25% / 10% sliding scale (18 Del. C. § 6865(a))	18 Del. C. § 6865(a),(b); Del. Lawyers' RPC 1.5(a)
Heads up§ 6865 applies ONLY to medical malpractice, not to ordinary PI cases. The client may instead choose a written per diem fee — § 6865(b).
Florida	33 1/3% until the answer is filed, then 40% (up to $1M); above that 30/20%	max 30% of the first $250,000, 10% above (Fla. Const. art. I § 26) — waivable	R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5(f)(4)(B); Fla. Const. art. I, § 26
Heads upBoth limits can give way: the scale is only a rebuttable presumption a court may exceed, and the med-mal cap can be waived in writing.
Georgia	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard, Ga. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5(a)	no special rule — medical malpractice is treated like ordinary PI cases	Ga. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5(a); O.C.G.A. § 34-9-108(a) (workers' comp only)
Heads upThe 25% limit applies ONLY to workers' comp and only with Board approval (O.C.G.A. § 34-9-108(a)) — not to ordinary accident cases.
Hawaii	no percentage cap; after a judgment the court sets the fee	no separate cap; HRS ch. 671 contains no fee provision	HRS § 607-15.5; Haw. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5; HRS ch. 671 (no fee provision)
Heads upOn a settlement the court reviews the fee only on request. The 40/33 1/3/25/15% scale comes from SB 2284 (2006), which never became law.
Iowa	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Iowa R. Prof. C. 32:1.5)	court reviews the contingency fee (§ 147.138) — but no percentage set	Iowa Code § 147.138; Iowa R. Prof. Conduct 32:1.5
Heads upCourt review is NOT a cap: § 147.138 names no percentage and applies only to claims against health care providers and hospitals.
Idaho	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Idaho R. Prof. Cond. 1.5)	no special rule — no percentage fee cap for medical malpractice	Idaho R. Prof. Cond. 1.5; IDAPA 17.01.01.802 (workers' comp only)
Heads upOnly workers' comp is limited: IDAPA 17.01.01.802 treats 25% (no hearing) or 30% (after hearing) as reasonable; the Industrial Commission must approve.
Illinois	no statutory cap for general PI — only Ill. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5	33 1/3% of all sums recovered — hard cap (735 ILCS 5/2-1114(a))	735 ILCS 5/2-1114 (P.A. 97-1145, eff. 18.01.2013); 820 ILCS 305/16a
Heads upThe outdated 33 1/3 / 25 / 20% sliding scale still circulates online — replaced by P.A. 97-1145; the court increase (subsec. c) was also repealed.
Indiana	no statutory cap — only Ind. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5(a)	15% ONLY on payments from the Patient's Compensation Fund (IC 34-18-18-1)	Ind. Code § 34-18-18-1; Ind. Pat. Comp. Fund v. Holcomb, 17 N.E.3d 255 (Ind. 2014)
Heads upThe 15% applies only to Fund money; the contract governs the first $250,000 from the provider — the total fee must be reasonable under Prof. Cond. R. 1.5(a).
Kansas	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (KRPC 1.5)	Yes: judge approves the fee after an evidentiary hearing (K.S.A. 7-121b); no percentage cap	K.S.A. 7-121b; K.S.A. 44-536(a); KRPC 1.5(d), (e) (S.Ct. R. 240)
Heads upKansas quirk: costs are deducted BEFORE the fee is calculated (KRPC 1.5(d)). On request, the court reviews any fee agreement (KRPC 1.5(e)).
Kentucky	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (SCR 3.130(1.5))	no special rule	SCR 3.130(1.5); KRS 342.320(2)(b) (Workers Comp)
Heads upOnly workers' comp is capped: a 20/15/10% sliding scale, max. $18,000 (agreements from 07/14/2018). Does NOT apply to ordinary accident cases.
Louisiana	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard under Rule 1.5	no fee cap; § 40:1231.2 caps only the damages amount ($500,000)	La. R.S. 23:1141(B); La. R.S. 40:1231.2(B)(1); La. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5
Heads upOnly workers' comp: max. 20% of the recovery and only with approval of the WC judge (La. R.S. 23:1141). Does not apply to ordinary accident cases.
Massachusetts	no statutory cap — only "clearly excessive" (Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a))	YES: 40% first $150k / 33 1/3% next $150k / 30% next $200k / 25% above $500k	Mass. Gen. Laws c. 231, § 60I; Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a),(c)
Heads upMed-mal: if the payout does not cover outstanding medical bills, the agreement is enforceable only if the fee drops to 20% or to that coverage.
Maryland	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Md. Rule 19-301.5(a))	no percentage cap; only a DISPUTED fee needs panel/court approval, § 3-2A-07(b)	Md. Rule 19-301.5(a); Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-07(b)
Heads upCommon myth: the 40/33/25/15% med-mal scale appears in NO current law — there is no § 3-2A-07A in the Maryland Code.
Maine	no statutory cap for general PI — only Me. R. Prof. C. 1.5	33 1/3% / 25% / 20% sliding scale (24 M.R.S. § 2961)	24 M.R.S. § 2961(1),(2); Me. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5
Heads upThe scale is not absolute: the court may award more if it is unreasonably low and the lawyer gave advance notice orally and in writing.
Michigan	YES: max. 1/3 of the NET recovery (after costs), MCR 8.121(B),(C)(1)	no special rule — med-mal falls under the same 1/3 cap (MCR 8.121(A))	Mich. Ct. R. 8.121(A)-(C),(F); MRPC 1.5(a)
Heads upThe 1/3 is figured on the net after costs; awarded costs and interest count toward the recovery. Also applies to no-fault benefits (MCR 8.121(A),(C)(1)).
Minnesota	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Minn. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a))	no special rule	Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a),(c); Minn. Stat. § 176.081 subd. 1 (WC only)
Heads upOnly workers' comp is capped: 20% of the first $275,000, cumulative max. $55,000 per injury (§ 176.081 subd. 1(a),(b)).
Missouri	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1.5)	no special rule (Chapter 538 RSMo contains no fee provision)	§ 484.130 RSMo: fees 'not restrained by law'; § 287.260.1 RSMo
Heads up'Not restrained by law' does not mean unlimited: Rule 4-1.5 reasonableness applies. Workers' comp: fees are subject to regulation by the Division.
Mississippiverify directly	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Miss. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5(a))	no special rule — no percentage fee cap for medical malpractice	Miss. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5(a); Miss. Code § 71-3-63; MWCC Rule 2.12
Heads upOnly workers' comp: max. 25% of total benefits; fees over $200 must be submitted to the Workers' Compensation Commission (MWCC Rule 2.12).
Montana	no statutory cap — fees set by agreement, not restrained by law	no special rule — no fee cap for medical malpractice	Mont. Code Ann. § 37-61-420 ('governed by agreement … not restrained by law')
North Carolina	no statutory cap — only the ban on 'clearly excessive' fees (RPC 1.5(a))	no special rule — G.S. 90-21.19 caps noneconomic damages, not the fee	N.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a),(c); N.C.G.S. § 97-90 (Workers Comp)
Heads upThe standard is 'clearly excessive' rather than the ABA's 'unreasonable'. The client must sign the agreement; costs if you lose must be disclosed.
North Dakota	no statutory cap — only reasonableness, N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a)	no special rule — no separate fee cap for medical malpractice	N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a); N.D.C.C. § 65-02-08(3)(b) (Workers' Comp)
Heads upWorkers' comp only: attorney fees paid by WSI are limited to 20% of the award plus per-stage maximums (§ 65-02-08(3)(b)).
Nebraska	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Neb. RPC § 3-501.5)	no percentage cap; the court reviews the fee on request (§ 44-2834(1))	Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-2834(1),(3); § 48-108 (WC); Neb. RPC § 3-501.5
Heads upMed-mal: no percentage cap, but either party can demand review; the client may choose an hourly fee. WC: fee agreements need judge approval (§ 48-108).
New Hampshire	no percentage cap; above a $200,000 recovery the court approves the fees	no valid special rule — RSA 507-C:8 struck down (Carson v. Maurer, 1980)	RSA 508:4-e III; Carson v. Maurer, 120 N.H. 925 (1980)
Heads upThe threshold is the settlement or verdict amount ($200,000), not the fee. Minors: normally 25% maximum (Super. Ct. R. 111(E)(2)).
New Jersey	33 1/3% up to $750,000, then 30/25/20% per additional $750,000	no special rule — the same tort sliding scale applies to medical malpractice	N.J. Ct. R. 1:21-7(c),(d),(f); Änderungs-Order 25.07.2014 (500k → 750k je Stufe)
Heads upCalculated on the NET after costs; minors capped at 25% if settled before trial; above $3M only by application to the court (R. 1:21-7(c)(6),(f)).
New Mexico	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Rule 16-105(A) NMRA)	no special rule; cap bills in 2025 (SB 176) and 2026 (HB 107) both failed	Rule 16-105(A) NMRA; NMSA 1978 § 52-1-54(I); HB 107 (2026) gescheitert
Heads upHard cap only in workers' compensation: $30,000 max per accident, $32,000 from 2027, $34,000 from 2029 — not in ordinary personal injury cases.
Nevada	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (NRPC 1.5)	35% of the NET recovery, NRS 7.095 (flat, no sliding scale)	NRS 7.095(1), (3): max 35% of the net recovery in professional negligence
Heads upOutdated lists still show the 2004 initiative's scale (40/33 1/3/25/15%). Today a flat 35% applies, calculated after costs are deducted (NRS 7.095(3)).
New York	33 1/3% (Schedule B) or sliding 50/40/35/25% (Schedule A), by court rule	YES — Judiciary Law 474-a: 30/25/20/15%, only 10% above $1.25M	22 NYCRR 1015.15, 806.27, 691.20 (AD-Depts.); N.Y. Judiciary Law 474-a
Heads upMedical malpractice follows the stricter scale (Jud. Law 474-a). An increase for "extraordinary circumstances" exists only under Schedule A, never Schedule B.
Ohio	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 1.5)	no special rule; § 4705.15 requires only a written contract + closing statement	Ohio Rev. Code § 4705.15(B),(C); Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a)
Heads up§ 4705.15 applies to ALL tort claims and caps nothing: it requires only a written fee contract and a closing statement.
Oklahoma	max 50% of the net recovery (Okla. Stat. tit. 5, § 7)	no special rule; the same 50% cap applies	Okla. Stat. tit. 5, § 7: max. 50 % des Netto-Betrags, ex contractu wie ex delicto
Heads up50% is the statutory cap, NOT the usual rate — what is typical in practice is clearly lower. Do not present it as the normal price.
Oregonverify directly	no statutory cap — only 'clearly excessive' (Oregon RPC 1.5)	no special rule	ORS 20.340(1)-(2); Oregon RPC 1.5(a)-(c)
Heads upORS 20.340: plain language, an explanation following the Oregon State Bar model, and a 24-hour right to cancel — otherwise the agreement is voidable.
Pennsylvania	no statutory cap — only reasonableness, Pa. R.P.C. 1.5(a)	no valid cap — 40 P.S. § 1301.604(a) has had no force since 1984	204 Pa. Code § 81.4 (R.P.C. 1.5); Heller v. Frankston, 475 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 1984)
Heads upMany sources still cite 30/25/20% for medical malpractice — that scale has been void since Heller v. Frankston (1984). Do not adopt it.
Rhode Island	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (R.I. RPC 1.5(a))	no special rule	R.I. Sup. Ct. R. Prof. Cond. (Art. V) 1.5(a),(c)
Heads upForums circulate a 40/33 1/3/25/15% scale for RI — it comes from California (MICRA, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6146), not from Rhode Island.
South Carolina	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (RPC 1.5(a))	no special rule	S.C. App. Ct. R. 407, RPC 1.5(a); S.C. Code § 42-15-90 (workers' comp only)
Heads upWorkers' comp differs: fees require approval by the Workers' Compensation Commission (S.C. Code § 42-15-90) — no freely agreed contingency fee.
South Dakota	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (S.D. RPC 1.5)	no special rule (§ 21-3-11 caps damages, not fees)	SDCL 16-18 App. RPC 1.5(a); SDCL 21-3-11; SDCL 62-7-36
Heads upEasily confused: SDCL 21-3-11 caps general damages ($500k), NOT the fee. Workers' comp uses a 25/30/35% sliding scale (SDCL 62-7-36).
Tennessee	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard, Tenn. RPC 1.5(a)	33 1/3% of all damages awarded, set by the court (§ 29-26-120)	Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-120; Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.5
Heads up33 1/3% applies ONLY to health care liability, not to ordinary accident cases; there the court sets the amount based on effort and complexity.
Texas	no statutory cap — standard is 'unconscionable' (Rule 1.04(a))	no special rule; CPRC ch. 74 contains no fee limit	Tex. Disc. R. Prof. Cond. 1.04(a),(d); Tex. Labor Code § 408.221(i)
Heads upThe standard is 'unconscionable', not mere unreasonableness — weaker protection. Workers' comp: max 25% of the compensation (§ 408.221(i)).
Utah	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Utah R. Prof. Cond. 1.5)	33 1/3% of the recovery (Utah Code § 78B-3-411)	Utah Code § 78B-3-411; Utah R. Prof. Conduct 1.5
Heads upThe cap covers settlement, arbitration award, judgment AND appeal — but only against a "health care provider" under § 78B-3-403.
Virginia	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard, Va. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a)	no fee cap; § 8.01-581.15 caps only the total damages award	Va. Code § 8.01-581.15; Va. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a)
Heads up§ 8.01-581.15 caps the TOTAL med-mal award ($2.75M from 07/01/2026), not the fee — it only lowers the base the percentage is taken from.
Vermontverify directly	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (V.R.Pr.C. 1.5)	no special rule	Vt. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a), (c)
Washington	no percentage cap; fee reviewable by the court on request (RCW 4.24.005)	court review of the fee is mandatory (RCW 7.70.070), but no fixed percentage	RCW 4.24.005; RCW 7.70.070; Wash. RPC 1.5(a)
Heads upNo cap, but two review paths: RCW 4.24.005 on request within 45 days of the final bill; RCW 7.70.070 is mandatory in med-mal cases, for both sides.
Wisconsin	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (SCR 20:1.5)	Yes: 33 1/3% up to $1M, 20% above; 25% if liability is admitted early	Wis. Stat. § 655.013(1m), (1t); SCR 20:1.5(a)
Heads upCap is not absolute: § 655.013(1t) lets the court allow more in extraordinary circumstances (e.g. appeal); the lawyer must also offer an hourly rate.
West Virginia	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (W. Va. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5)	no special rule — Art. 55-7B contains no fee provision	W. Va. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a); W. Va. Code Art. 55-7B (no fee provision)
Heads upThe circulating 40/33 1/3/25/15% scale is in no current WV law: Art. 55-7B runs from 55-7B-1 to 55-7B-12 — there is no § 55-7B-9e.
Wyoming	no hard cap — 33 1/3 / 40% are only presumptive rates (Rule 5(a),(c))	no special rule — the Rule 5 scheme applies the same to all case types	Wyo. Rules Governing Contingent Fees, Rule 5(a)-(c)
Heads up33 1/3% applies if settled within 60 days of filing, 40% after — both only presumptions; Rule 5(c) allows other rates. Over $1M: 30%.

A word on why so many rows carry a warning: outdated fee scales circulate widely in this corner of the internet. Nevada replaced its 2004 sliding scale with a flat 35%. Illinois replaced its own scale years ago. And the scales commonly quoted for Maryland and West Virginia appear in no current statute at all — we checked the codes section by section. Every row here links to the primary source so you can confirm it yourself.

What You Actually Take Home: Worked Example

$100,000 gross settlement (typical mid-severity PI case)

Gross settlement	$100,000
Attorney fee (33⅓% pre-suit)	− $33,333
Case costs (filing, depo, records)	− $3,500
Medical liens (post-negotiation)	− $12,000
Medicare lien (negotiated 60% down)	− $4,800
Net to client	$46,367

That’s 46% of gross — typical for a non-catastrophic case with average medical bills. Cases with no lien exposure can hit 60%+; cases with large hospital liens often fall below 40%.

Run your own net-settlement numbers →

How to Negotiate Attorney Fees

1. Get multiple consultations

Consultations are free. Most reputable PI firms will give you a 30-minute case evaluation at no cost. Use this to understand the case and compare attorneys before signing.

2. High-value cases justify lower percentages

If liability is clear and damages are well-documented, a $500K+ case may settle in 90 days with minimal work. A 25% fee on that case is fair to the attorney and saves you $40K+ vs. the standard 33%.

3. Ask about the post-suit fee bump

Many agreements default to 40% as soon as a lawsuit is filed. You can negotiate that bump to apply only if the case is filed AND not settled within 90 days — protecting you against quick post-filing settlements.

4. Get the costs cap in writing

Negotiate a cap on case costs (e.g., $5K without your written approval). Reasonable for any honest attorney; a red flag if they refuse.

5. Demand a written, plain-English fee agreement

Required by every state bar. The agreement must clearly state the percentage, what counts as a recovery, how costs are handled, and what happens at every settlement stage. Don’t sign anything that’s vague on these points.

Frequently Asked Questions

What percentage does a lawyer take from a settlement?

In personal injury the standard is a third of a settlement reached before a lawsuit is filed, rising to around 40% if the case is litigated — set by your written fee agreement, not by law in most states. Two details change the number that actually reaches you. First, whether the percentage is calculated before or after case costs are deducted: the same headline rate produces different amounts depending on that order, and it is worth asking in writing. Second, liens — Medicare, Medicaid and private health insurers can claim reimbursement out of your share. Outside personal injury the model differs entirely: employment and defamation work is usually hourly, workers' compensation fees are capped by state statute and approved by a judge, and Social Security representation is capped at 25% of past-due benefits.

How much does a lawyer cost if I am not filing an injury claim?

It depends entirely on the type of work, and injury law is the outlier. Personal injury runs on contingency — no fee unless you recover — which is why the percentages on this page look nothing like an hourly rate. Most other work is billed differently: criminal defence and family matters are commonly flat-fee or hourly, immigration and bankruptcy usually flat-fee per stage, and business disputes almost always hourly. A flat fee is not automatically cheaper; it prices certainty, and what counts as included varies widely between firms. Whatever the structure, ask for it in writing, ask what happens if the matter settles early, and ask whether costs — filing fees, records, experts — are billed on top.

What percentage do personal injury lawyers take?

Standard contingency fee is 33⅓% pre-suit and 40% after a lawsuit is filed. Catastrophic and appeal cases often run 40–50%. The percentage applies to gross settlement before liens and costs.

Do I pay anything if I lose?

Under standard contingency: no attorney fee if you lose. However, you may owe case costs (filing fees, expert witness fees, deposition costs, court reporter fees) which can run $2K–$50K+. Most attorneys advance these costs and only recoup them if you win — read the fee agreement carefully.

Can I negotiate the contingency percentage?

Yes, especially for high-value clear-liability cases. Strong cases ($500K+) often justify a 25–30% pre-suit fee. Standard 33% is the baseline. You should always negotiate the post-suit fee (40%) down if you have a strong pre-suit demand.

Are contingency fees capped by law?

Med-mal contingency fees are capped in many states. California uses a sliding scale (Bus. & Prof. §6146): 40% on the first $50K, 33% on the next $50K, 25% on the next $500K, 15% above $600K. Florida caps med-mal fees similarly. Most general PI cases have no statutory cap — only the standard contingency agreement.

What costs do I pay besides the attorney's percentage?

Case costs: filing fees ($300–$500), service of process ($75–$200), expert witness fees ($2K–$15K per expert), depositions ($800–$3K each), accident reconstruction ($5K–$25K), medical record fees ($1–$3/page), trial exhibits, court reporter fees. Liens: Medicare, Medicaid, ERISA plans, hospital liens all come off the gross. Use our net settlement calculator to estimate take-home.

Hourly vs. contingency: which is cheaper?

For PI, contingency is almost always cheaper because typical cases would cost $30K–$100K+ at hourly rates and many plaintiffs can't afford to fund it. Contingency aligns the attorney's incentives with yours. Some attorneys do hybrid (reduced hourly + smaller contingency) for unusual cases.

Next Steps

How much is my case worth?Net payment calculator Lawyer fees breakdown

Browse All Guides

23 comprehensive guides covering every part of a personal-injury claim — from accident to settlement check.

How Much Is My Case Worth?

Adjuster's formula + worked examples

The Claim Process

9 stages from accident to check

After a Car Accident

10-step guide for the first 48 hours

Negotiate with Adjusters

9 principles + adjuster-tactic responses

Demand Letter Template

7-section template + sample text

Personal Injury FAQ

30+ plain-English answers

Types of PI Cases

Every category with burden + value

PI Statistics (Citable)

53.1M+ records, key figures

Average Settlement by Injury

Median + range for 10 injury types

Statute of Limitations

All 51 jurisdictions × 4 claim types

Workers' Comp by State

51 states ranked by max weekly TTD

No-Fault Insurance States

12 + DC PIP minimums & thresholds

Insurance Bad Faith

Triggers + state-by-state remedies

Comparative Negligence by State

All 50 fault rules + citations

How to Find a PI Lawyer

6 steps + 12 questions + 7 red flags

Workers' Comp Claim Process

8-stage timeline + third-party suits

How Much Is My WC Case Worth?

Formula, scheduled losses, third-party

Legal Research Sources

30+ authoritative gov + bar sources

PI vs Workers' Comp

Side-by-side comparison + 6 scenarios

Punitive Damages by State

51-state caps + Gore due-process

Can I Sue for Pain & Suffering?

Yes/no guide + 10 FAQs

Legal Glossary

50+ legal & insurance terms

More Free Settlement Calculators

Attorney Fee Awards (Study)

What courts actually approve in fees — our own analysis

Will Your Case Go to Trial?

10.76M cases say almost never — 1.5% reach a verdict

Demand Letter Template

Free template plus what adjusters look for

Negotiating with Adjusters

Tactics insurers use and how to answer them

Find Out What Your Case Is Actually Worth

The calculator shows typical ranges — your case is specific. Request a free case review from a licensed personal injury attorney in your state. No obligation, and no fee unless you win.

Nombre Completo

Email *

Número de Teléfono

Fecha del Accidente

A few quick questions (takes 5 seconds — matches you to the right attorney)

Were you physically injured?

Do you already have an attorney?

Were you at fault for the accident?

Su Estado

Código Postal

Además, doy mi consentimiento por separado para que Settlement Insight comparta los detalles relacionados con la salud que proporciono (como mi tipo de lesión, estado del tratamiento y descripción del caso) con los bufetes de abogados participantes y socios de admisión legal descritos en nuestra Política de Privacidad, para que puedan evaluar mi posible caso. Entiendo que este consentimiento es independiente del consentimiento de contacto anterior, no es una condición para recibir ningún servicio, y que puedo retirarlo en cualquier momento a través de privacy@settlementinsight.com.

Sin Ganar, Sin Honorarios·Consulta Gratuita·100% Confidencial

Personal Injury Lawyer Cost

Reviewed by Leonard Goldberg, Editor · Last updated August 24, 2026

The Standard Contingency Fee

Most personal injury attorneys work on contingency — no upfront fee; you pay nothing if you lose. The standard fee tiers in 2026:

Stage	Typical Fee	When It Applies
Pre-suit settlement	33⅓%	Settles via demand letter / negotiation
Post-suit settlement	40%	Lawsuit filed; settles before trial
Trial / verdict	40–45%	Case actually tried to verdict
Appeal	+5–10%	Appellate work on top of trial fee

California’s Med-Mal Fee Limit (Bus. & Prof. § 6146)

When the case resolves	Maximum fee
Settled before a complaint or arbitration demand is filed	25%
Settlement, arbitration, or judgment after filing	33%
Above those limits	Only if a court or arbitrator grants a motion showing good cause

If you find a 40 / 33⅓ / 25 / 15% scale for California, it is out of date

What Your State Actually Allows

State	Ordinary injury case	Medical malpractice	Source
Alaska	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Alaska R. Prof. C. 1.5(a))	no special rule — AS 09.55.549 caps pain-and-suffering ($250k/$400k), not fees	Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a)-(c); Alaska R. Civ. P. 82; AS 09.55.549
Heads upAlaska is a "loser pays" state: under Civil Rule 82 the losing party may owe the other side's attorney fees; RPC 1.5(b) requires written notice.
Alabama	no statutory cap; only "clearly excessive" (Rule 1.5(a), 9 factors)	no percentage cap; § 6-5-543 only governs fees when future damages are paid in installments	Ala. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a); Peebles v. Miley, 439 So.2d 137 (Ala. 1983)
Heads upAlabama's standard is not "reasonable" but "clearly excessive" (Rule 1.5(a)) — the bar for challenging a fee is higher than in most states.
Arkansas	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Ark. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a))	no special rule; Medical Malpractice Act (16-114-201 et seq.) has no fee provision	Ark. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a); Martin v. Humphrey, 558 S.W.3d 370 (Ark. 2018)
Heads up33 1/3% is NOT an AR cap: Issue 4 (2016) and Issue 1 (2018) were both blocked; in 2018 the court wrote expressly 'no such cap presently exists'.
Arizona	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard under ER 1.5(a)	no percentage cap; A.R.S. § 12-568: court reviews the fee on any party's motion	A.R.S. § 12-568; Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, ER 1.5(a)
Heads upMedical malpractice: either party may ask the court under A.R.S. § 12-568 to review the fee's reasonableness; a ruling follows within 20 days.
California	no statutory cap; § 6147 expressly states the fee is negotiable	YES: § 6146 — 25% before filing, 33% after; more only by court order (AB 35)	Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6146, 6147; Cal. R. Prof. C. 1.5
Heads upAB 35 replaced the MICRA sliding scale on 1/1/2023: older sources still show 40/33.3/25/15% — today it is 25% before filing, 33% after.
Colorado	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Colo. RPC 1.5(a))	no special rule — the Health Care Availability Act contains no fee provision	Colo. RPC 1.5(a),(c); C.R.S. 13-64-302; C.R.S. 8-43-403(1)
Heads upC.R.S. 13-64-302 caps DAMAGES, not fees — it is often miscited as a fee cap. Workers' comp: over 25% of the disputed benefits is unreasonable.
Connecticut	sliding scale: 33 1/3 / 25 / 20 / 15% per $300,000, then 10% (§ 52-251c(b))	no special rule — the same sliding scale also applies to medical malpractice	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-251c(a)-(f)
Heads upThe scale can be waived in complex cases (bold-print clause + notarized acknowledgment), but then 33 1/3% total is the max (§ 52-251c(c)-(f)).
District of Columbia	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (D.C. RPC 1.5(a))	no special rule	D.C. R. Prof'l Conduct 1.5(a); D.C. Code § 32-1530(c), (f)
Heads upWorkers' comp exception: never more than 20% of the benefit obtained, and every fee needs agency approval (D.C. Code § 32-1530(c), (f)).
Delaware	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Del. RPC 1.5(a))	35% / 25% / 10% sliding scale (18 Del. C. § 6865(a))	18 Del. C. § 6865(a),(b); Del. Lawyers' RPC 1.5(a)
Heads up§ 6865 applies ONLY to medical malpractice, not to ordinary PI cases. The client may instead choose a written per diem fee — § 6865(b).
Florida	33 1/3% until the answer is filed, then 40% (up to $1M); above that 30/20%	max 30% of the first $250,000, 10% above (Fla. Const. art. I § 26) — waivable	R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5(f)(4)(B); Fla. Const. art. I, § 26
Heads upBoth limits can give way: the scale is only a rebuttable presumption a court may exceed, and the med-mal cap can be waived in writing.
Georgia	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard, Ga. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5(a)	no special rule — medical malpractice is treated like ordinary PI cases	Ga. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5(a); O.C.G.A. § 34-9-108(a) (workers' comp only)
Heads upThe 25% limit applies ONLY to workers' comp and only with Board approval (O.C.G.A. § 34-9-108(a)) — not to ordinary accident cases.
Hawaii	no percentage cap; after a judgment the court sets the fee	no separate cap; HRS ch. 671 contains no fee provision	HRS § 607-15.5; Haw. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5; HRS ch. 671 (no fee provision)
Heads upOn a settlement the court reviews the fee only on request. The 40/33 1/3/25/15% scale comes from SB 2284 (2006), which never became law.
Iowa	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Iowa R. Prof. C. 32:1.5)	court reviews the contingency fee (§ 147.138) — but no percentage set	Iowa Code § 147.138; Iowa R. Prof. Conduct 32:1.5
Heads upCourt review is NOT a cap: § 147.138 names no percentage and applies only to claims against health care providers and hospitals.
Idaho	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Idaho R. Prof. Cond. 1.5)	no special rule — no percentage fee cap for medical malpractice	Idaho R. Prof. Cond. 1.5; IDAPA 17.01.01.802 (workers' comp only)
Heads upOnly workers' comp is limited: IDAPA 17.01.01.802 treats 25% (no hearing) or 30% (after hearing) as reasonable; the Industrial Commission must approve.
Illinois	no statutory cap for general PI — only Ill. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5	33 1/3% of all sums recovered — hard cap (735 ILCS 5/2-1114(a))	735 ILCS 5/2-1114 (P.A. 97-1145, eff. 18.01.2013); 820 ILCS 305/16a
Heads upThe outdated 33 1/3 / 25 / 20% sliding scale still circulates online — replaced by P.A. 97-1145; the court increase (subsec. c) was also repealed.
Indiana	no statutory cap — only Ind. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5(a)	15% ONLY on payments from the Patient's Compensation Fund (IC 34-18-18-1)	Ind. Code § 34-18-18-1; Ind. Pat. Comp. Fund v. Holcomb, 17 N.E.3d 255 (Ind. 2014)
Heads upThe 15% applies only to Fund money; the contract governs the first $250,000 from the provider — the total fee must be reasonable under Prof. Cond. R. 1.5(a).
Kansas	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (KRPC 1.5)	Yes: judge approves the fee after an evidentiary hearing (K.S.A. 7-121b); no percentage cap	K.S.A. 7-121b; K.S.A. 44-536(a); KRPC 1.5(d), (e) (S.Ct. R. 240)
Heads upKansas quirk: costs are deducted BEFORE the fee is calculated (KRPC 1.5(d)). On request, the court reviews any fee agreement (KRPC 1.5(e)).
Kentucky	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (SCR 3.130(1.5))	no special rule	SCR 3.130(1.5); KRS 342.320(2)(b) (Workers Comp)
Heads upOnly workers' comp is capped: a 20/15/10% sliding scale, max. $18,000 (agreements from 07/14/2018). Does NOT apply to ordinary accident cases.
Louisiana	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard under Rule 1.5	no fee cap; § 40:1231.2 caps only the damages amount ($500,000)	La. R.S. 23:1141(B); La. R.S. 40:1231.2(B)(1); La. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5
Heads upOnly workers' comp: max. 20% of the recovery and only with approval of the WC judge (La. R.S. 23:1141). Does not apply to ordinary accident cases.
Massachusetts	no statutory cap — only "clearly excessive" (Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a))	YES: 40% first $150k / 33 1/3% next $150k / 30% next $200k / 25% above $500k	Mass. Gen. Laws c. 231, § 60I; Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a),(c)
Heads upMed-mal: if the payout does not cover outstanding medical bills, the agreement is enforceable only if the fee drops to 20% or to that coverage.
Maryland	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Md. Rule 19-301.5(a))	no percentage cap; only a DISPUTED fee needs panel/court approval, § 3-2A-07(b)	Md. Rule 19-301.5(a); Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-07(b)
Heads upCommon myth: the 40/33/25/15% med-mal scale appears in NO current law — there is no § 3-2A-07A in the Maryland Code.
Maine	no statutory cap for general PI — only Me. R. Prof. C. 1.5	33 1/3% / 25% / 20% sliding scale (24 M.R.S. § 2961)	24 M.R.S. § 2961(1),(2); Me. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5
Heads upThe scale is not absolute: the court may award more if it is unreasonably low and the lawyer gave advance notice orally and in writing.
Michigan	YES: max. 1/3 of the NET recovery (after costs), MCR 8.121(B),(C)(1)	no special rule — med-mal falls under the same 1/3 cap (MCR 8.121(A))	Mich. Ct. R. 8.121(A)-(C),(F); MRPC 1.5(a)
Heads upThe 1/3 is figured on the net after costs; awarded costs and interest count toward the recovery. Also applies to no-fault benefits (MCR 8.121(A),(C)(1)).
Minnesota	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Minn. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a))	no special rule	Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a),(c); Minn. Stat. § 176.081 subd. 1 (WC only)
Heads upOnly workers' comp is capped: 20% of the first $275,000, cumulative max. $55,000 per injury (§ 176.081 subd. 1(a),(b)).
Missouri	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1.5)	no special rule (Chapter 538 RSMo contains no fee provision)	§ 484.130 RSMo: fees 'not restrained by law'; § 287.260.1 RSMo
Heads up'Not restrained by law' does not mean unlimited: Rule 4-1.5 reasonableness applies. Workers' comp: fees are subject to regulation by the Division.
Mississippiverify directly	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Miss. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5(a))	no special rule — no percentage fee cap for medical malpractice	Miss. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5(a); Miss. Code § 71-3-63; MWCC Rule 2.12
Heads upOnly workers' comp: max. 25% of total benefits; fees over $200 must be submitted to the Workers' Compensation Commission (MWCC Rule 2.12).
Montana	no statutory cap — fees set by agreement, not restrained by law	no special rule — no fee cap for medical malpractice	Mont. Code Ann. § 37-61-420 ('governed by agreement … not restrained by law')
North Carolina	no statutory cap — only the ban on 'clearly excessive' fees (RPC 1.5(a))	no special rule — G.S. 90-21.19 caps noneconomic damages, not the fee	N.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a),(c); N.C.G.S. § 97-90 (Workers Comp)
Heads upThe standard is 'clearly excessive' rather than the ABA's 'unreasonable'. The client must sign the agreement; costs if you lose must be disclosed.
North Dakota	no statutory cap — only reasonableness, N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a)	no special rule — no separate fee cap for medical malpractice	N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a); N.D.C.C. § 65-02-08(3)(b) (Workers' Comp)
Heads upWorkers' comp only: attorney fees paid by WSI are limited to 20% of the award plus per-stage maximums (§ 65-02-08(3)(b)).
Nebraska	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Neb. RPC § 3-501.5)	no percentage cap; the court reviews the fee on request (§ 44-2834(1))	Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-2834(1),(3); § 48-108 (WC); Neb. RPC § 3-501.5
Heads upMed-mal: no percentage cap, but either party can demand review; the client may choose an hourly fee. WC: fee agreements need judge approval (§ 48-108).
New Hampshire	no percentage cap; above a $200,000 recovery the court approves the fees	no valid special rule — RSA 507-C:8 struck down (Carson v. Maurer, 1980)	RSA 508:4-e III; Carson v. Maurer, 120 N.H. 925 (1980)
Heads upThe threshold is the settlement or verdict amount ($200,000), not the fee. Minors: normally 25% maximum (Super. Ct. R. 111(E)(2)).
New Jersey	33 1/3% up to $750,000, then 30/25/20% per additional $750,000	no special rule — the same tort sliding scale applies to medical malpractice	N.J. Ct. R. 1:21-7(c),(d),(f); Änderungs-Order 25.07.2014 (500k → 750k je Stufe)
Heads upCalculated on the NET after costs; minors capped at 25% if settled before trial; above $3M only by application to the court (R. 1:21-7(c)(6),(f)).
New Mexico	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Rule 16-105(A) NMRA)	no special rule; cap bills in 2025 (SB 176) and 2026 (HB 107) both failed	Rule 16-105(A) NMRA; NMSA 1978 § 52-1-54(I); HB 107 (2026) gescheitert
Heads upHard cap only in workers' compensation: $30,000 max per accident, $32,000 from 2027, $34,000 from 2029 — not in ordinary personal injury cases.
Nevada	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (NRPC 1.5)	35% of the NET recovery, NRS 7.095 (flat, no sliding scale)	NRS 7.095(1), (3): max 35% of the net recovery in professional negligence
Heads upOutdated lists still show the 2004 initiative's scale (40/33 1/3/25/15%). Today a flat 35% applies, calculated after costs are deducted (NRS 7.095(3)).
New York	33 1/3% (Schedule B) or sliding 50/40/35/25% (Schedule A), by court rule	YES — Judiciary Law 474-a: 30/25/20/15%, only 10% above $1.25M	22 NYCRR 1015.15, 806.27, 691.20 (AD-Depts.); N.Y. Judiciary Law 474-a
Heads upMedical malpractice follows the stricter scale (Jud. Law 474-a). An increase for "extraordinary circumstances" exists only under Schedule A, never Schedule B.
Ohio	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 1.5)	no special rule; § 4705.15 requires only a written contract + closing statement	Ohio Rev. Code § 4705.15(B),(C); Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a)
Heads up§ 4705.15 applies to ALL tort claims and caps nothing: it requires only a written fee contract and a closing statement.
Oklahoma	max 50% of the net recovery (Okla. Stat. tit. 5, § 7)	no special rule; the same 50% cap applies	Okla. Stat. tit. 5, § 7: max. 50 % des Netto-Betrags, ex contractu wie ex delicto
Heads up50% is the statutory cap, NOT the usual rate — what is typical in practice is clearly lower. Do not present it as the normal price.
Oregonverify directly	no statutory cap — only 'clearly excessive' (Oregon RPC 1.5)	no special rule	ORS 20.340(1)-(2); Oregon RPC 1.5(a)-(c)
Heads upORS 20.340: plain language, an explanation following the Oregon State Bar model, and a 24-hour right to cancel — otherwise the agreement is voidable.
Pennsylvania	no statutory cap — only reasonableness, Pa. R.P.C. 1.5(a)	no valid cap — 40 P.S. § 1301.604(a) has had no force since 1984	204 Pa. Code § 81.4 (R.P.C. 1.5); Heller v. Frankston, 475 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 1984)
Heads upMany sources still cite 30/25/20% for medical malpractice — that scale has been void since Heller v. Frankston (1984). Do not adopt it.
Rhode Island	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (R.I. RPC 1.5(a))	no special rule	R.I. Sup. Ct. R. Prof. Cond. (Art. V) 1.5(a),(c)
Heads upForums circulate a 40/33 1/3/25/15% scale for RI — it comes from California (MICRA, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6146), not from Rhode Island.
South Carolina	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (RPC 1.5(a))	no special rule	S.C. App. Ct. R. 407, RPC 1.5(a); S.C. Code § 42-15-90 (workers' comp only)
Heads upWorkers' comp differs: fees require approval by the Workers' Compensation Commission (S.C. Code § 42-15-90) — no freely agreed contingency fee.
South Dakota	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (S.D. RPC 1.5)	no special rule (§ 21-3-11 caps damages, not fees)	SDCL 16-18 App. RPC 1.5(a); SDCL 21-3-11; SDCL 62-7-36
Heads upEasily confused: SDCL 21-3-11 caps general damages ($500k), NOT the fee. Workers' comp uses a 25/30/35% sliding scale (SDCL 62-7-36).
Tennessee	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard, Tenn. RPC 1.5(a)	33 1/3% of all damages awarded, set by the court (§ 29-26-120)	Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-120; Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.5
Heads up33 1/3% applies ONLY to health care liability, not to ordinary accident cases; there the court sets the amount based on effort and complexity.
Texas	no statutory cap — standard is 'unconscionable' (Rule 1.04(a))	no special rule; CPRC ch. 74 contains no fee limit	Tex. Disc. R. Prof. Cond. 1.04(a),(d); Tex. Labor Code § 408.221(i)
Heads upThe standard is 'unconscionable', not mere unreasonableness — weaker protection. Workers' comp: max 25% of the compensation (§ 408.221(i)).
Utah	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (Utah R. Prof. Cond. 1.5)	33 1/3% of the recovery (Utah Code § 78B-3-411)	Utah Code § 78B-3-411; Utah R. Prof. Conduct 1.5
Heads upThe cap covers settlement, arbitration award, judgment AND appeal — but only against a "health care provider" under § 78B-3-403.
Virginia	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard, Va. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a)	no fee cap; § 8.01-581.15 caps only the total damages award	Va. Code § 8.01-581.15; Va. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a)
Heads up§ 8.01-581.15 caps the TOTAL med-mal award ($2.75M from 07/01/2026), not the fee — it only lowers the base the percentage is taken from.
Vermontverify directly	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (V.R.Pr.C. 1.5)	no special rule	Vt. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a), (c)
Washington	no percentage cap; fee reviewable by the court on request (RCW 4.24.005)	court review of the fee is mandatory (RCW 7.70.070), but no fixed percentage	RCW 4.24.005; RCW 7.70.070; Wash. RPC 1.5(a)
Heads upNo cap, but two review paths: RCW 4.24.005 on request within 45 days of the final bill; RCW 7.70.070 is mandatory in med-mal cases, for both sides.
Wisconsin	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (SCR 20:1.5)	Yes: 33 1/3% up to $1M, 20% above; 25% if liability is admitted early	Wis. Stat. § 655.013(1m), (1t); SCR 20:1.5(a)
Heads upCap is not absolute: § 655.013(1t) lets the court allow more in extraordinary circumstances (e.g. appeal); the lawyer must also offer an hourly rate.
West Virginia	no statutory cap — only the reasonableness standard (W. Va. R. Prof. Cond. 1.5)	no special rule — Art. 55-7B contains no fee provision	W. Va. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a); W. Va. Code Art. 55-7B (no fee provision)
Heads upThe circulating 40/33 1/3/25/15% scale is in no current WV law: Art. 55-7B runs from 55-7B-1 to 55-7B-12 — there is no § 55-7B-9e.
Wyoming	no hard cap — 33 1/3 / 40% are only presumptive rates (Rule 5(a),(c))	no special rule — the Rule 5 scheme applies the same to all case types	Wyo. Rules Governing Contingent Fees, Rule 5(a)-(c)
Heads up33 1/3% applies if settled within 60 days of filing, 40% after — both only presumptions; Rule 5(c) allows other rates. Over $1M: 30%.

What You Actually Take Home: Worked Example

$100,000 gross settlement (typical mid-severity PI case)

Gross settlement	$100,000
Attorney fee (33⅓% pre-suit)	− $33,333
Case costs (filing, depo, records)	− $3,500
Medical liens (post-negotiation)	− $12,000
Medicare lien (negotiated 60% down)	− $4,800
Net to client	$46,367

That’s 46% of gross — typical for a non-catastrophic case with average medical bills. Cases with no lien exposure can hit 60%+; cases with large hospital liens often fall below 40%.

Run your own net-settlement numbers →

How to Negotiate Attorney Fees

1. Get multiple consultations

Consultations are free. Most reputable PI firms will give you a 30-minute case evaluation at no cost. Use this to understand the case and compare attorneys before signing.

2. High-value cases justify lower percentages

If liability is clear and damages are well-documented, a $500K+ case may settle in 90 days with minimal work. A 25% fee on that case is fair to the attorney and saves you $40K+ vs. the standard 33%.

3. Ask about the post-suit fee bump

4. Get the costs cap in writing

Negotiate a cap on case costs (e.g., $5K without your written approval). Reasonable for any honest attorney; a red flag if they refuse.

5. Demand a written, plain-English fee agreement

Frequently Asked Questions

What percentage does a lawyer take from a settlement?

How much does a lawyer cost if I am not filing an injury claim?

What percentage do personal injury lawyers take?

Standard contingency fee is 33⅓% pre-suit and 40% after a lawsuit is filed. Catastrophic and appeal cases often run 40–50%. The percentage applies to gross settlement before liens and costs.

Do I pay anything if I lose?

Can I negotiate the contingency percentage?

Are contingency fees capped by law?

What costs do I pay besides the attorney's percentage?

Hourly vs. contingency: which is cheaper?

Next Steps

How much is my case worth?Net payment calculator Lawyer fees breakdown

Browse All Guides

23 comprehensive guides covering every part of a personal-injury claim — from accident to settlement check.

How Much Is My Case Worth?

Adjuster's formula + worked examples

The Claim Process

9 stages from accident to check

After a Car Accident

10-step guide for the first 48 hours

Negotiate with Adjusters

9 principles + adjuster-tactic responses

Demand Letter Template

7-section template + sample text

Personal Injury FAQ

30+ plain-English answers

Types of PI Cases

Every category with burden + value

PI Statistics (Citable)

53.1M+ records, key figures

Average Settlement by Injury

Median + range for 10 injury types

Statute of Limitations

All 51 jurisdictions × 4 claim types

Workers' Comp by State

51 states ranked by max weekly TTD

No-Fault Insurance States

12 + DC PIP minimums & thresholds

Insurance Bad Faith

Triggers + state-by-state remedies

Comparative Negligence by State

All 50 fault rules + citations

How to Find a PI Lawyer

6 steps + 12 questions + 7 red flags

Workers' Comp Claim Process

8-stage timeline + third-party suits

How Much Is My WC Case Worth?

Formula, scheduled losses, third-party

Legal Research Sources

30+ authoritative gov + bar sources

PI vs Workers' Comp

Side-by-side comparison + 6 scenarios

Punitive Damages by State

51-state caps + Gore due-process

Can I Sue for Pain & Suffering?

Yes/no guide + 10 FAQs

Legal Glossary

50+ legal & insurance terms

More Free Settlement Calculators

Attorney Fee Awards (Study)

What courts actually approve in fees — our own analysis

Will Your Case Go to Trial?

10.76M cases say almost never — 1.5% reach a verdict

Demand Letter Template

Free template plus what adjusters look for

Negotiating with Adjusters

Tactics insurers use and how to answer them

Find Out What Your Case Is Actually Worth

The calculator shows typical ranges — your case is specific. Request a free case review from a licensed personal injury attorney in your state. No obligation, and no fee unless you win.

Nombre Completo

Email *

Número de Teléfono

Fecha del Accidente

A few quick questions (takes 5 seconds — matches you to the right attorney)

Were you physically injured?

Do you already have an attorney?

Were you at fault for the accident?

Su Estado

Código Postal

Sin Ganar, Sin Honorarios·Consulta Gratuita·100% Confidencial