According to Florida personal injury lawyers, most injury cases are handled by attorneys on a contingency basis which means the lawyer will get paying only if they win in courts or settle out-of-court.  Tort reform proponents have long demanded restrictions on these contingency fees which typically give the lawyers a third of any monetary awards won. The tort reformers argue that fat contingency fees encourage frivolous lawsuits, litigation and give attorneys the wrong incentives, especially on settlement decisions.

Many states have listened to the tort reformers, 16 state, including Florida, California and New Jersey all limit contingency fees in medical malpractice suits or personal injury cases.  In Florida, which sends 2004 has had the strictest limits in the nation; fees in medical malpractice cases are capped at 30 percent of the first $250,000 and just 10 percent of the balance.

Some people say there is a glaring absence of pragmatic proof to support the attack on contingency fees.  The contingency fee reformers assume that curbing their fees will shorten settlement negotiations. For example, if a lawyer is going to receive a smaller fee, then she/he is motivated to settle more quickly and reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits – and a lawyer will not take a suit if he can not assure a large payday for themselves.  However studies with a Boca Raton personal injury lawyer, the opposite is true.

Many lawyers who work on a third contingency basis screen their cases at the door because why take a case if you can’t make a reasonable bet that you will yield a high fee either in a trial or in a settlement.  Pursuing litigation is costly for attorneys and they won’t let out that bet unless they think they’ll win. In states that allow lawyers to collect less than 33 percent, many attorneys file hundreds of cases and work by the billable hour in order to make their money.  When lawyers are paid by the hour, there is little incentive for them to settle quickly.

Many feel mandated limits are wrong in principle because they curb the rights of plaintiffs to choose how to reward their agents – the lawyers.