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.
Personal Injury Lawyer Cost
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
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If you find a 40 / 33⅓ / 25 / 15% scale for California, it is out of date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%.
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
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.
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