Proposal to impose nation's most restrictive cap on contingency fees may appear on ballot, judge rules
A judge in Nevada has refused to block a ballot measure that would impose a 20% cap on contingency fees in civil cases in the state. (Image from Shutterstock)
A judge in Nevada has refused to block a ballot measure that would impose a 20% cap on contingency fees in civil cases in the state.
Judge James T. Russell of Carson City, Nevada, ruled Friday that the proposal may appear on the ballot because it complies with Nevada requirements, report Reuters and the Nevada Independent.
Ballot measures in the state are restricted to only one issue and must include a straightforward, succinct and nonargumentive description of the proposal.
The fee cap “would be by far the most restrictive in the country,” according to Reuters. Only two other states cap fees in all civil cases, according to a declaration filed in the case. They are Oklahoma, with a 50% cap, and Michigan, with a 33% cap. Several states limit fees in medical malpractice cases, but the lowest cap is 30%, imposed by New York.
Nevadans for Fair Recovery, a political action committee primarily backed by Uber, had proposed the measure. The groups challenging the measure are Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability and the Nevada Justice Association.
If the measure is approved by voters, it would take effect in 2027.
Those who oppose the ballot measure claim that the description is misleading because it doesn’t explain that it will be more difficult to find lawyers in contingency cases, and that Medicaid will need more taxpayer money when there are fewer lawsuit recoveries to reimburse the state for care.
Russell said the challengers had “strong arguments” but said the cited effects of the fee cap were “too speculative and hypothetical.”
Those challenging the ballot measure said they would appeal, according to Reuters.
