A survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies in July among Nevada residents found that only 23% of respondents were “very convinced” by an argument opposing a proposed 20% cap on attorney contingency fees. The argument suggested that implementing the 20% cap could make it more difficult for plaintiffs to find legal representation.
According to Public Opinion Strategies’ survey, 81% of Nevada respondents said they would vote “yes” on the proposed 20% cap, which would mean that plaintiffs in lawsuits would take home 80% of their awards or settlements. The survey found that only 23% of respondents were “very convinced” by an argument against the proposed cap, which stated, “Capping lawyer fees tilts the scales of justice in favor of corporate interests and against victims. Corporations could still spend millions of dollars on large teams of lawyers, but it would be harder for victims to find qualified lawyers. It is not fair to let corporations spend millions on lawyers while limiting the lawyers that victims can hire.”
In Nevada, attorneys typically charge contingency fees between 30% and 40%, meaning the lawyer will take 30-40% of any money that a client is awarded in a lawsuit, according to De Castroverde Law Group.
The proposed ballot initiative survived a legal challenge when Carson City District Court Judge James Russell ruled in May that the initiative meets Nevada’s requirements that ballot initiatives can only focus on one subject, provides the full text of the proposed measure, and its description of the effects the 20% cap would have is legally adequate, according to the court filing. Russell noted that there is currently no limit on attorney contingency fees for most civil cases in Nevada aside from the requirement that they be “reasonable,” with the exception of a 35% cap in medical malpractice cases.
Public Opinion Strategies was founded in 1991 and conducts interviews and surveys across the U.S., according to its website.
