LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — A measure that could have been placed on voter ballots has been blocked by the Nevada Supreme Court.
The initiative would have capped attorney contingency fees at 20% for civil actions. You can read the description below.
"If enacted, this initiative will limit the fees an attorney can charge and receive as a contingency fee in a civil case in Nevada to 20% of any amount or amounts recovered, beginning in 2027. In Nevada currently, most civil cases do not limit an attorney's contingent fee percentages, except that such fees must be reasonable. Current law does, however, limit attorney fees in medical malpractice cases to 35% of any recovery, and caps contingency fees for a private attorney contracted to represent the State of Nevada to 25% of the total amount recovered."
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled the description is misleading and could confuse voters.
"As currently drafted, the description leaves several material questions unanswered, such as whether the Initiative applies to civil medical malpractice cases and those where private attorneys represent the State of Nevada; and if so, whether the cap proposed by the Initiative replaces the existing higher caps," the ruling reads in part. "The description of effect is also not straightforward and is deceptive and misleading regarding how the proposed cap is calculated."
You can read their full ruling below.
Why should I care about this?
Because it could affect your ability to get legal representation.
The original lawsuit was filed last year by the Nevada Justice Association and Uber Sexual Assault Survivors For Legal Accountability. According to the original lawsuit, they stated the cap could reduce the incentive for lawyers to take their cases.
Uber is behind a Nevada-based political action committee called Nevadans for Fair Recovery and as of July 15, 2024, spent at least $5 million promoting the attorney fee initiative.
According to the original lawsuit, the proposal "would benefit Uber because it could effectively insulate it from private claims brought by riders or drivers for, among other things, sexual harassment and assault. But the consequences of the proposal would stretch far beyond Uber ... the proposal would make it substantially more difficult for injured Nevadans to obtain counsel."
As of Jan. 22, 2025, 1,564 Uber passengers have come forward and are suing Uber as part of a class action lawsuit against the ride-share company. There are also 513 related cases that are pending in the California court system.
Other examples of cases that could be affected include victims of wage theft, deceptive business practices, discrimination, unfair and abusive debt collection, nursing home abuse, and predatory lending.
Those against the initiative celebrated the court's decision.
"We're thrilled that the Nevada Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Uber's cynical scheme to sidestep accountability for the countless sexual assault cases and other harms it has enabled under its watch," attorney Deepak Gupta said in a statement.
Those that support the initiative claim that's not true.
"This measure did not limit Uber's exposure to lawsuits, period, and it's simply false to suggest it would have," a Nevadans For Fair Recovery spokesperson wrote in a statement. "It also did not in any way impact a victim's ability to sue Uber or limit damages."
They add that they're not done fighting.
"We are disappointed with the court's unprecedented decision to side against victims and voters in favor of billboard attorneys," Nevadans For Fair Recovery officials said in a statement. "The justices have protected a system that enables attorneys to fly on private jets, while everyday Nevadans foot the bill ... Today's verdict is not the end of our efforts. We plan to pursue an aggressive campaign to educate voters about how billboard attorneys have rigged the system to put their interests over Nevadans."
This isn't the first time that Uber has gotten involved in this type of legislation. The company has previously supported bills in both Massachusetts and California.
Uber officials have not commented on the Nevada ruling, as of Monday afternoon.
