A survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies in July among Nevada voters found that 81% of respondents support a proposed ballot initiative that would cap attorney contingency fees at 20%.
According to Public Opinion, when the contingency fee cap was explained in “plain English” rather than in “simulated ballot wording,” 81% of respondents said they support the cap, while 14% said they would vote “no” and the remaining 5% were unsure. The “plain English” explanation of the ballot initiative shared with the surveyed Nevadans read: “This measure would cap attorney contingency fees in civil cases at twenty percent (20%), ensuring that plaintiffs receive eighty percent (80%) of the net settlements and awards when they win in court or settle a case.”
The survey found that 60% of respondents were “very convinced” by messaging that explained that attorneys can take as much as half of settlements and awards, “leaving victims with barely enough money to cover the costs of their injuries or to pay their bills if they are unable to work.” In contrast, only 23% of respondents were “very convinced” by an argument against the ballot initiative, which said that the fee cap “tilts the scales of justice in favor of corporate interests and against victims” by making it more difficult for victims to find legal representation.
Capping attorneys’ fees would benefit Nevada’s consumers and taxpayers by decreasing the amount of money they pay as a result of excessive lawsuits, according to a fact sheet about the initiative. The fact sheet stated that “rampant lawsuits” lead to higher costs for goods and services, particularly car insurance.
Nevada drivers are paying $2,983 each year for full coverage car insurance, which is 28% more than the national average cost of full coverage car insurance, according to Bankrate.
Public Opinion Strategies was founded in 1991 and conducts interviews and surveys across the U.S., according to its website.
