A ballot initiative backed by rideshare interests this year proposes to cap attorney contingency fees and certain recoverable medical expenses in accident cases at 25%. Supporters frame the measure as a way to reduce legal costs and control insurance premiums. At first glance, that may sound reasonable.

A closer look raises serious concerns about how the proposal could affect injured Californians, particularly those who cannot afford to hire a lawyer or pay for medical treatment out of pocket.

How contingency fees currently work

In most automobile injury cases, attorneys work on a contingency fee basis. That means:

The client pays no upfront fees.
The attorney advances case costs.
The attorney is paid only if compensation is recovered.

This system exists for one reason: access to justice. Most people injured in serious crashes do not have the financial ability to pay hourly legal fees. Contingency representation allows individuals — not just corporations and insurance companies — the ability to obtain skilled legal counsel.

Under the proposed 25% cap, the financial structure of contingency litigation changes dramatically. Serious injury cases are expensive to prepare. They often require:

Accident reconstruction experts
Medical specialists
Life-care planning analysis
Economic loss experts
Depositions and litigation costs

A strict 25% cap may make many catastrophic injury cases financially impractical for attorneys to pursue, particularly when insurers aggressively dispute liability.

If attorneys cannot reasonably take these cases, injured individuals may be left to face insurance companies alone.

The impact on medical treatment

The initiative also seeks to limit the percentage of medical expenses that may be recovered or arranged in certain cases.

In many serious injury claims, medical providers agree to treat patients on a lien basis — meaning payment is deferred until the case resolves. This arrangement allows injured people to receive surgery, specialist care, diagnostic imaging, and rehabilitation without upfront payment.

If recoverable medical expenses are capped or restricted, providers may be less willing to treat accident victims without immediate payment. That could create a dangerous outcome: injured individuals may struggle to obtain necessary care while their case is pending.

In catastrophic injury cases — including spinal cord trauma, traumatic brain injury, or severe orthopedic harm — early and consistent treatment is critical to long-term recovery. Barriers to treatment do not protect consumers; they limit options.

Who benefits from a 25% cap?

Insurance companies and large corporate defendants routinely litigate cases with in-house counsel or retained defense firms. They do not operate under contingency caps. Their legal costs are absorbed as part of business operations.

In contrast, injured individuals often rely entirely on contingency representation. Reducing the economic viability of these cases does not reduce defense resources — it only narrows access for plaintiffs.

Catastrophic cases are different

Not every car accident results in minor injuries. Some crashes involve commercial trucking collisions, multi-vehicle high-speed crashes, fatal accidents, permanent disability, and long-term medical dependency.

These cases are complex. They require substantial preparation and financial investment before resolution. A flat 25% cap does not account for case complexity, litigation risk, or the time required to bring serious injury claims to completion.

When financial incentives are compressed too tightly, fewer attorneys may be able to accept high-risk catastrophic cases. That does not eliminate the injuries — it shifts the burden to families already facing medical and financial uncertainty.

Access to justice in the Central Valley

In regions like the Central Valley, many working families do not have the savings to fund legal representation or ongoing medical care after a serious crash. The contingency system helps level the playing field.

If representation becomes economically unrealistic, injured individuals may be pressured into early settlements — often before the full medical picture is understood, due to the need for finances to recover from the incident.

A ballot initiative with real-world effects

Ballot initiatives often promise cost control and fairness. The real-world effects depend on how they function in practice. A 25% cap on attorney fees and recoverable medical expenses may:

Reduce the number of attorneys willing to take serious injury cases
Limit access to lien-based medical treatment
Increase pressure on injured individuals to settle early
Shift negotiating leverage toward insurance companies

These are not abstract concerns. They affect real people navigating serious injury claims.

Insco Injury Law’s perspective

Personal injury litigation exists to provide a civil remedy when negligence causes harm. The contingency fee system allows individuals without financial resources to seek accountability against well-funded defendants. Any proposal that fundamentally alters that structure deserves careful examination.

For individuals injured in automobile or commercial vehicle collisions, access to qualified representation and medical care can determine the trajectory of recovery. Policies that restrict those avenues may carry consequences beyond what their titles suggest.

If you have questions about how contingency representation works, or your rights or whether you have a claim, contact Insco Injury Law for a free confidential consultation. Representation is contingency-based. There are no upfront fees.

Uber's Attorney Fee Cap: What It Could Mean for Injury Victims in California