Talk:Contingent fee

Comments[edit]

the no win no fee is a furphy as it depends on the definition of win. Kisstheearth (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a contingent fee can simply be described as a fee paid for professional services, such as those of a lawyer, that is made only if the client receives a satisfactory result.

I added tags because:

1. The article is badly written, as it stands. For example, the 'discussion' confuses UK and US law. I don't have time to address that now, but it is very jumbled. Also, the writing style needs improvement. It is not encyclopedic.

2. The article is uncited. This is a problem, because when that happens, misinformation creeps in (and opinion) as was the case here. "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" were in dire need of repair. First, legal aid does not cover personal injury lawsuits in either the US or UK. If there is a country that allows this, then it needs to be cited. I deleted it entirely,unless and until someone can come up with a country that does. Second, the 'Disadvantages' section had a lot of opinion, with no citation. Further, many of the comments are redundant, as they were discussed under the US heading.

jgwlaw 22:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have on the UK, and I need sources: The main article is not accurate and I assume written be somebody without a full grasp of the area. Contingency fees and Conditional Fee Agreements CFA) should be distinguished as whilst in England and Wales techincally a CFA is a form of contingency fee it is the only form allowed in contentious matters and it is not a true contingency fee as compared to the USA model , IE the Claimant solicitor cannot take a percentage of the damages in any contentious case however if successful they will be entitled to a success fee. Such success fee's vary for example in RTA cases they are fixed at 12.5% unless the matter proceeds to trial. In employers liability cases they are fixed at 25% unless proceeds to trial and can vary in other matters. CFA are most prominent in personal injury law although can be used in other areas.

In my view this whole article needs re writing although I unfortunately do not have the time.

David Ellis Solicitor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgwlaw (talk • contribs)

I cannot help you with the UK part of it, because my knowledge is mainly in the US. Anyway I added some citations and references to the text in the US part that were missing, I also merged part of the no win no fee article (66.100.35.19 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There is another mistake in the text: in Belgium contingency fees are not allowed. The attorney is allowed to charge higher rates pro rata to the punitive damages awarded but the 'no win no pay rule' as such is forbidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.83.74.222 (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

The article is almost entirely original research, and spotty original research at that. There's no mention of the controversy over contingent fees in the US (e.g., state AGs paying billion tobacco lawyers, or the number of notable cases where lawyers abused contingent fees to leave their clients worse off), no mention of legislation seeking to regulate contingent fees (such as the Class Action Fairness Act), and no mention of the extensive law review literature both for and against contingent fees. Article needs a complete top-to-bottom rewrite. THF (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge from No win no fee[edit]

Support. No need for separate articles so long as country differences are spelled out in separate sections. Bear in mind that No win no fee appears to be an uncited collection of original research. --CliffC (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Both articles leave a lot to be desired, but there is no justification for having two on what is essentially one topic. BasilSorbie (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree they should be amalgamated and tightened up - they are both lacking in rigour. "No win no fee" is a term used in the UK to refer colloquially to contingent lawyers' fees. The only type of contingency fee allowed in the civil courts is a "conditional fee" (consisting of the usual hourly rate plus a percentage uplift called a success fee) but in some types of case (such as employment tribunal work) there are also "damages-based" contingency fees, where the lawyer takes a percentage of damages. These are now regulated by the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2010. MrsMarkleham (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Support.IN the UK you can not have a CFA (No Win, No Fee agreement) and a contingent fee. In Personal Injury in the UK it is illegal to charge a contingent fees

Against The US and UK systems are so different trying to combine them into one article will only result in confusion. 80.235.138.77 (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No cure No Pay"[edit]

I wonder what the relation is with "no cure no pay". It may one of those (apparently) English expressions that is only used in the Dutch language, in particular to refer to an (allegedly) American practice of attorneys only to ask a fee if they are successful, i.e. if a (100%) contingency fee is applied. This is strictly prohibited under Dutch law: the Dutch do not perceive attorneys as yet another type of commercial consultants, but as agents with a delicate position in the process of law, that would suffer if it would be exposed to the potential perverse incentives of a really free market. Rbakels (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct phrase in English is "no win no fee." Also, it is generally unprofessional conduct in the U.S. to ask for a 100% contingency fee; usually the maximum that lawyers can get away with is 40%. That phrase you've mentioned is definitely wrong and clearly mangles the original. It must be a Dutch version of Engrish! --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: "no win, no fee" -- perhaps the most commonly used term in the United States is "100 No-Fee Guarantee." This term is so common that there have been attempts to trademark the phrase. (So far this has not been successful.)

Thanks for the helpful reply. Still one question: 100% of what? The attorney clearly can not claim all of the damages, but my understanding is that there are cases (in the US) where the attorney does not ask a fee at all if he is unsuccessful? Am I wrong? Rbakels (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The United States section of this Wikipedia entry is minimally informative. Our firm has a couple of FAQs and articles on our site about how contingency fees are structured in California. We limit our practice to trust and estate litigation and many of our clients prefer a contingency fee. This minimizes their personal risk and also means they can pursue their inheritance without having to come up with cash up front to file a case.

The rules of contingency fees in the United States are governed by each individual state Bar's rules of professional conduct. As a general rule, contingency fee agreements must be clearly stated in writing signed by both the client and attorney, and the fee must be reasonable for the work performed. Some attorneys accept cases on contingency basis to cover the cost of the attorney's fee, but require the client to pay additional expenses, such as expert witnesses. This should be clearly stated in the written agreement.

It is common practice for attorneys to charge a contingency fee of anywhere from 25-33% to handle a case up to the point of trial, and to take a larger percentage (e.g. 33-50%) if the case actually goes to trial.

Stray reference removed[edit]

I removed a reference tag that was screwing up the page formatting. I could not determine to what the reference applied. It was "New Westminister Registry case No. New S-S-140748"

Nsayer (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Contingent fee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category removed as to Alternatives[edit]

I removed the category "Alternatives" as there was no substance beneath it - alternatives were discussed throughout. Saltwolf (talk)saltwolf