Medical Malpractice Attorney Contingency-Fee Limits by State: Sliding Scales, Caps, and Court-Approval Rules (All 50 States + DC)
Twenty-three of the 51 U.S. jurisdictions limit what a plaintiff’s lawyer may charge on a contingency in a medical-malpractice case. The limits take three forms: sliding scales that step the percentage down as the recovery grows (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Wyoming’s presumptive schedule), flat caps (California’s post-AB 35 two-tier 25%/33% rule keyed to whether suit was filed, Illinois and Utah at one-third, Michigan’s one-third court rule, Tennessee at one-third, Nevada at 35%, Oklahoma at 50%, and Indiana’s 32% cap on the Patient’s Compensation Fund portion), and court-review regimes where the court determines the reasonableness of the fee with no fixed percentage (Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Washington). Florida’s limit sits in the state constitution and is routinely waived by written client election under the Bar rule. The remaining 28 jurisdictions impose no med-mal-specific limit beyond the general reasonableness standard of Rule 1.5.
The fee limit changes case economics directly: a $2 million recovery under New York’s Judiciary Law § 474-a scale yields a materially smaller fee than the same recovery under a flat one-third agreement, and California’s post-AB 35 tiers turn on whether the case settled before or after suit. The table below states the rule for every jurisdiction, links to the statute or court rule, and notes waiver and court-approval mechanisms.
How this table was built. Every row was checked against the statute, court rule, or controlling decision linked in the Authority column (opened and read, not just cited) in September 2026. 51 of 51 jurisdictions are source-verified; no rows are flagged. Rules change — confirm the controlling text for the date of the alleged negligence before relying on any entry. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
| State↕ | Limit type↕ | Schedule / cap↕ | Applies to↕ | Waiver / exceptions↕ | Authority↕ | Status↕ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | Not applicable (no statutory limit) | None | Ala. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Alaska | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | Not applicable (no statutory limit) | None | Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Arizona | Court approval / reasonableness review | None; no percentage cap. At the request of any party the court must determine the reasonableness of each party's attorney fees using eight statutory factors, within 20 days of the request | Medical-malpractice actions (A.R.S. Title 12, ch. 5.1) | Review occurs only on a party's request; no fixed percentage to waive | A.R.S. § 12-568 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Arkansas | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | Not applicable (no statutory limit) | None | Ark. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 | Verified 2026-09 |
| California | Statutory flat cap | 25% of the amount recovered if the case resolves by settlement and release before a civil complaint or arbitration demand is filed; 33% of the amount recovered if resolved by settlement, arbitration, or judgment after filing. 'Recovered' excludes costs, disbursements, and medical expenses | Medical-malpractice claims only (actions against a health care provider based on professional negligence) | After a complaint or arbitration demand is filed, the court may approve a fee above 33% in its discretion on a showing of good cause | Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6146 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Colorado | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only. C.R.C.P. Chapter 23.3 (Rules Governing Contingent Fees) requires a written agreement and disclosure statement but sets no maximum percentage | Not applicable (no statutory limit) | None | Colo. RPC 1.5; C.R.C.P. ch. 23.3 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Connecticut | Statutory sliding scale | 33 1/3% of the first $300,000; 25% of the next $300,000; 20% of the next $300,000; 15% of the next $300,000; 10% of any amount over $1,200,000 (of damages awarded and received or of the settlement amount received) | All personal-injury, wrongful-death, and property-damage claims (including medical malpractice) | Claimant may waive the tiers if the claim is substantially complex, unique, or different from other such claims; waiver must be in a written, notarized agreement reciting the statutory schedule in 12-point boldface, and the waived fee may not exceed 33 1/3% of the recovery (§ 52-251c(c)-(g)) | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-251c | Verified 2026-09 |
| Delaware | Statutory sliding scale | 35% of the first $100,000 of damages; 25% of the next $100,000; 10% of the balance of any awarded damages | Medical-malpractice claims only (health-care medical negligence actions under 18 Del. C. ch. 68) | Claimant may instead elect, in writing at the time of employment, to pay counsel on a mutually satisfactory per diem basis (§ 6865(b)); no court-approval exception for a higher contingent fee | 18 Del. C. § 6865 | Verified 2026-09 |
| District of Columbia | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | Not applicable (no statutory limit) | None | D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Florida | Constitutional provision | Art. I, § 26: claimant must receive at least 70% of the first $250,000 and 90% of all damages above $250,000, exclusive of reasonable costs (i.e., fee effectively capped at 30% of the first $250,000 and 10% above). Absent the constitutional limit, Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(B)(i) presumes fees excessive above 33 1/3% of recovery up to $1 million pre-answer (40% after answer through judgment), 30% of $1-2 million, and 20% above $2 million (lower tiers if liability is admitted) | Medical-liability claims only (constitutional limit); Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(B)(i) schedule applies to all personal-injury contingency matters | Client may waive the art. I, § 26 limits by signing the notarized waiver form in Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(B)(iii) after being told of the constitutional rights, the right to independent counsel, and a three-day cancellation right; fees above the Rule schedule otherwise require prior court approval | Fla. Const. art. I, § 26; R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5(f)(4)(B) | Verified 2026-09 |
| Georgia | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | Not applicable (no statutory limit) | None | Ga. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Hawaii | Court approval / reasonableness review | None; no percentage cap. In any tort action ending in judgment, attorney fees for both plaintiff and defendant are limited to a reasonable amount approved by the court; in a settled tort action, either party may request court approval of its fees | All tort actions (including medical malpractice) | Court approval is automatic only when judgment is entered; after settlement, review occurs only on a party's request | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-15.5 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Idaho | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | Not applicable (no statutory limit) | None | Idaho R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Illinois | Statutory flat cap | Total contingent fee for plaintiff's attorney(s) may not exceed 33 1/3% of all sums recovered; future damages payable in periodic installments are reduced to lump-sum value for the calculation | Medical-malpractice claims only | None in current text; the former court-approval exception for extraordinary services (subsec. (c)) is now blank | 735 ILCS 5/2-1114 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Indiana | Statutory flat cap | 32% of any recovery from the Patient's Compensation Fund for malpractice committed after June 30, 2017 (15% for acts before July 1, 2017). No statutory cap on the fee taken from the provider's/insurer's portion of the recovery | Medical-malpractice claims only; limit applies solely to the portion paid from the Patient's Compensation Fund | None stated; the cap does not reach the underlying provider-liability portion, which is governed by Rule 1.5 reasonableness | Ind. Code § 34-18-18-1 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Iowa | Court approval / reasonableness review | None; no percentage cap. The court shall determine the reasonableness of any contingent-fee arrangement between the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney | Personal-injury or wrongful-death actions against physicians, osteopathic physicians, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, pharmacists, chiropractors, physician assistants, nurses, or licensed hospitals based on professional negligence | None; review is mandatory for the plaintiff's contingent fee (defense fees not reviewed) | Iowa Code § 147.138 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Kansas | Court approval / reasonableness review | None; no percentage cap. Reasonable attorney fees to be paid by each litigant must be approved by the judge after an evidentiary hearing, before final disposition, using eight statutory factors (time and labor, skill, customary local fee, amount and results, time limits, relationship, experience/reputation, fixed vs. contingent) | Actions for personal injury or death arising from professional services of any health care provider (plaintiff and defense fees) | None; approval is mandatory in every such action | K.S.A. 7-121b | Verified 2026-09 |
| Kentucky | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | Not applicable (no statutory limit) | None | Ky. SCR 3.130(1.5) | Verified 2026-09 |
| Louisiana | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | Not applicable (no statutory limit) | None | La. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5; La. R.S. 37:218 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Maine | Statutory sliding scale | 33 1/3% of the first $100,000 recovered; 25% of the next $100,000; 20% of any amount over $200,000 (future damages reduced to lump-sum value) | Medical-malpractice claims only (actions for professional negligence against health care providers) | Attorney may petition the court for a higher fee if the court finds the statutory fee inadequate to compensate the attorney reasonably, applying M.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 factors | 24 M.R.S. § 2961 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Maryland | No med-mal-specific limit | None; Rule 19-301.5 (MARPC 1.5) reasonableness only. Under § 3-2A-07(b), if a legal fee in a Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office claim is disputed, the attorney may not collect it unless approved by the arbitration panel or the court | Not applicable (no percentage limit); § 3-2A-07(b) approval applies only to disputed fees in health-care malpractice claims | None | Md. Rule 19-301.5; Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-07(b) | Verified 2026-09 |
| Massachusetts | Statutory sliding scale | 40% of the first $150,000 recovered; 33 1/3% of the next $150,000; 30% of the next $200,000; 25% of any amount over $500,000 (settlement, arbitration, or judgment) | Medical-malpractice claims only (actions for malpractice against a provider of health care) | No upward waiver. Fee is unenforceable if the plaintiff's net recovery after fees and expenses would be less than unpaid past and future medical expenses, unless the fee is 20% or less or is reduced to allow payment of those expenses; the court may also find a fee within the schedule unreasonably high | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 60I | Verified 2026-09 |
| Michigan | Court-rule flat cap | Maximum fee is one-third of the net amount recovered (after deducting disbursements chargeable to the claim; taxed costs and interest count as part of the recovery; structured settlements valued at present value). A fee above one-third is deemed a 'clearly excessive fee' under MRPC 1.5(a) | All personal-injury, wrongful-death, and no-fault benefit claims (including medical malpractice) | None for the client; fees above one-third are permitted only when received through a statutory fee award or sanction (e.g., MCL 500.3148). Lower fees may be agreed | MCR 8.121 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Minnesota | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only. Under Minn. Stat. § 548.251 a percentage fee must be computed on the award as reduced for collateral sources, and a subrogated collateral-source provider pays the same fee percentage on its share | Not applicable (no statutory limit) | None | Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5; Minn. Stat. § 548.251 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Mississippi | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | Not applicable (no statutory limit) | None | Miss. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Missouri | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 4-1.5 reasonableness only | Not applicable (no statutory limit) | None | Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1.5; RSMo § 538.220 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Montana | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | N/A — no statutory or rule-based percentage limit | None; contingent fee must be in a signed writing stating the percentage(s) and expense treatment (Rule 1.5(c)) | Mont. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) | Verified 2026-09 |
| Nebraska | Court approval / reasonableness review | No fixed percentages; in any action against a health care provider for malpractice or professional negligence, on motion of either party the court shall review that party's attorney's fees and allow such compensation as it deems reasonable (§ 44-2834(1)) | Medical-malpractice / professional-negligence claims against health care providers (Nebraska Hospital-Medical Liability Act) | Review is triggered only on motion of a party; patient may instead elect by written agreement to compensate counsel on a per diem basis (§ 44-2834(3)). Court may also tax reasonable attorney's fees against a party whose claim or defense lacked a reasonable chance of success (§ 44-2834(2)). | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-2834 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Nevada | Statutory flat cap | 35% of the amount recovered (net of disbursements and costs of prosecution or settlement; medical-care costs and general office overhead are not deductible) for causes of action accruing on or after Oct. 1, 2023. Causes of action accruing before Oct. 1, 2023 remain under the former tiers: 40% of first $50,000; 33⅓% of next $50,000; 25% of next $500,000; 15% over $600,000. | Medical-malpractice claims only (actions for professional negligence against providers of health care, NRS ch. 41A) | None stated; the limit applies to all forms of recovery including settlement, arbitration and judgment (NRS 7.095(2)) | NRS 7.095 | Verified 2026-09 |
| New Hampshire | No med-mal-specific limit | None currently enforceable; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only. (The unenforceable RSA 507-C:8 schedule still printed in the RSA reads 50% of first $1,000; 40% of next $2,000; 33⅓% of next $97,000; 20% over $100,000.) | N/A — statutory med-mal schedule struck down | Settlements of $200,000 or more in medical-injury actions require court approval (RSA 508:4-e, III), which includes review of the fee | RSA 507-C:8 (held unconstitutional, Carson v. Maurer, 120 N.H. 925 (1980)); N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 | Verified 2026-09 |
| New Jersey | Court-rule sliding scale | 33⅓% of the first $750,000 recovered; 30% of the next $750,000; 25% of the next $750,000; 20% of the next $750,000; on amounts over $3,000,000, a reasonable fee fixed by the court on application. For a minor or mentally incapacitated client, fee on a pre-trial settlement may not exceed 25%. | All personal-injury / tort claims (any claim for damages based on the alleged tortious conduct of another), including medical malpractice | Attorney may apply on written notice to the client to the Assignment Judge for a fee in excess of the schedule where the permitted fee is inadequate (R. 1:21-7(f)); court application required for the portion of recovery above $3,000,000 | N.J. Ct. R. 1:21-7(c) | Verified 2026-09 |
| New Mexico | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | N/A — no statutory or rule-based percentage limit | None | None (Medical Malpractice Act, NMSA 1978 ch. 41 art. 5, contains no fee cap) | Verified 2026-09 |
| New York | Statutory sliding scale | 30% of the first $250,000 recovered; 25% of the next $250,000; 20% of the next $500,000; 15% of the next $250,000; 10% of any amount over $1,250,000 — computed on the net sum recovered after deducting expenses for expert testimony and investigative or other services | Medical, dental and podiatric malpractice claims only | On application with written notice to the claimant and lienholders, the trial court may fix a greater fee for extraordinary circumstances, not exceeding the fee fixed by the retainer agreement (§ 474-a(4)); infants' claims also subject to Jud. Law § 474 court approval | N.Y. Jud. Law § 474-a | Verified 2026-09 |
| North Carolina | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | N/A — no statutory or rule-based percentage limit | None | N.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) | Verified 2026-09 |
| North Dakota | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | N/A — no statutory or rule-based percentage limit | None | None (N.D.C.C. ch. 28-01 / 32-03.2 contain no fee cap); N.D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Ohio | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 (fee may not be clearly excessive) only | N/A — no statutory or rule-based percentage limit | Counsel fees on wrongful-death recoveries administered in probate court require probate approval; contingent-fee agreements must be in a writing signed by client and lawyer stating the percentage(s) for settlement, trial and appeal | Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 1.5 (no statutory cap) | Verified 2026-09 |
| Oklahoma | Statutory flat cap | Not to exceed 50% of the net amount of the judgment recovered or compromise made, whether the claim arises ex contractu or ex delicto | All civil claims (contract and tort, including personal injury and medical malpractice) — not med-mal-specific | None; contracts in personal-injury or wrongful-death cases procured through paid lay intermediaries are void (5 O.S. § 7) | 5 O.S. § 7 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Oregon | No med-mal-specific limit | None on compensatory recoveries; general Rule 1.5 (not clearly excessive) only. Attorney's share of a punitive-damages award may not exceed 20% (ORS 31.735(1)(a)). | N/A — no med-mal percentage limit; the 20% punitive-damages limit applies to all civil actions | None | Or. RPC 1.5 (no statutory cap); ORS 31.735(1)(a) (punitive-damages share) | Verified 2026-09 |
| Pennsylvania | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only (the MCARE Act contains no fee cap) | N/A — no statutory or rule-based percentage limit | Minors' and incapacitated persons' compromises require court approval, including approval of counsel fees (Pa.R.C.P. 2039); contingent-fee agreements must be in writing stating the percentage for settlement, trial and appeal (Rule 1.5(c)) | Pa. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap); Pa.R.C.P. 2039 (minors) | Verified 2026-09 |
| Rhode Island | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | N/A — no statutory or rule-based percentage limit | Court approval applies to minors' settlements | R.I. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) | Verified 2026-09 |
| South Carolina | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | N/A — no statutory or rule-based percentage limit | None; contingent-fee agreement must be in a signed writing specifying the percentage and expense treatment | S.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) | Verified 2026-09 |
| South Dakota | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | N/A — no statutory or rule-based percentage limit | None; contingent-fee agreement must be in writing (Rule 1.5(c)) | S.D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) | Verified 2026-09 |
| Tennessee | Statutory flat cap | Contingent fee set by the court on the basis of time and effort devoted, complexity of the claim and other pertinent matters, not to exceed 33⅓% of all damages awarded to the claimant | Medical-malpractice (health care liability) claims only | None stated in the statute | Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-120 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Texas | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general reasonableness (Rule 1.04) only — plaintiff med-mal counsel commonly charge 40% | N/A — no statutory or rule-based percentage limit | None | None (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 74 contains no fee cap); Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct 1.04 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Utah | Statutory flat cap | Contingent fee may not exceed 33⅓% of the amount recovered | Medical-malpractice claims only (Utah Health Care Malpractice Act — personal injury or wrongful death caused by a health care provider's negligence) | None; the limit applies regardless of whether recovery is by settlement, arbitration or judgment, and whether an appeal is involved (§ 78B-3-411(2)) | Utah Code § 78B-3-411 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Vermont | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | N/A — no statutory or rule-based percentage limit | None | Vt. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) | Verified 2026-09 |
| Virginia | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | N/A — no statutory or rule-based percentage limit | None | Va. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) | Verified 2026-09 |
| Washington | Court approval / reasonableness review | No fixed percentages; in any action under RCW ch. 7.70 the court shall determine the reasonableness of each party's attorneys' fees, considering eight factors (time and labor, preclusion of other employment, customary local fee, amount involved and results, time limits, relationship with client, lawyer's experience and ability, and whether the fee is fixed or contingent) | Medical-malpractice claims only (actions for injury from health care under RCW ch. 7.70) | None; review is mandatory in every ch. 7.70 action and applies to both plaintiff and defense fees | RCW 7.70.070 | Verified 2026-09 |
| West Virginia | No med-mal-specific limit | None; general Rule 1.5 reasonableness only | N/A — no statutory or rule-based percentage limit | None | W. Va. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) | Verified 2026-09 |
| Wisconsin | Statutory sliding scale | 33⅓% of the first $1,000,000 recovered (reduced to 25% of the first $1,000,000 if liability is stipulated within 180 days after the original complaint is filed and not later than 60 days before the first day of trial); 20% of any amount over $1,000,000 | Medical-malpractice claims only (Wis. Stat. ch. 655 actions against health care providers) | Court may authorize a higher fee on a showing of exceptional circumstances, including an appeal; attorney must offer the client an hourly or per diem alternative that is not subject to the limits | Wis. Stat. § 655.013 | Verified 2026-09 |
| Wyoming | Court-rule sliding scale | Presumptively reasonable schedule: where total recovery is $1,000,000 or less, 33⅓% if settled before or within 60 days after suit is filed, or 40% if settled later or judgment entered on a verdict; 30% of any recovery in excess of $1,000,000 (Rule 5(a)–(b)) | All contingent-fee matters (casualty and wrongful-death cases generally) — not med-mal-specific | Schedule is a presumption, not a hard cap: attorneys and clients remain free to contract for different percentages (Rule 5(c)); either party may seek review of reasonableness by the State Bar Committee on Resolution of Fee Disputes within 60 days of final distribution, with district-court review of the committee decision (Rule 5(f)–(g)) | Wyo. R. Governing Contingent Fees for Members of the Wyo. State Bar, Rule 5 | Verified 2026-09 |
State-by-state notes
Alabama
Alabama has no statute or court rule capping contingency fees in medical-malpractice cases; fees are governed only by the reasonableness standard of Alabama Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5. The Alabama Medical Liability Act does not address attorney fees.
Authority: Ala. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 · Alabama med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Alabama settlement ranges
Alaska
Alaska's medical-malpractice statutes (AS 09.55.530 et seq.) contain no contingency-fee cap; fees are subject only to the reasonableness factors of Alaska Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5.
Authority: Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 · Alaska med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Alaska settlement ranges
Arizona
Arizona sets no percentage cap. A.R.S. 12-568 lets any party in a medical-malpractice action ask the court to review the reasonableness of each side's attorney fees, weighing time and labor, customary local fees, amount involved and results, experience of counsel, and whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
Authority: A.R.S. § 12-568 · Arizona med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Arizona settlement ranges
Arkansas
The Arkansas Medical Malpractice Act does not limit attorney fees; only Rule 1.5 reasonableness applies. Ballot initiatives that would have added a constitutional fee cap were not enacted.
Authority: Ark. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 · Arkansas med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Arkansas settlement ranges
California
Post-AB 35, the MICRA fee limit is a two-tier stage-based cap (25% pre-suit, 33% after filing), not the old four-tier sliding scale. A court may exceed 33% only for good cause after litigation has been filed. Amended by AB 35 (Stats. 2022, ch. 17), effective Jan. 1, 2023, replacing the former 40%/33 1/3%/25%/15% sliding scale
Authority: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6146 · California med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · California settlement ranges
Colorado
Colorado has no statutory cap on medical-malpractice contingency fees. Chapter 23.3 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure governs the form of every contingent-fee agreement (written disclosure statement, itemized expenses, percentages that may be flat or on a descending scale) but leaves the percentage to the parties, subject to Rule 1.5 reasonableness. Chapter 23.3 repealed and reenacted as amended in Colo. RPC 1.5(c), effective Jan. 1, 2021
Authority: Colo. RPC 1.5; C.R.C.P. ch. 23.3 · Colorado med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Colorado settlement ranges
Connecticut
Connecticut's cap is a general personal-injury sliding scale, not a med-mal-specific rule. A client may contract around the tiers in complex cases, but only up to a flat one-third and only with the statutory written, notarized waiver; a non-compliant over-cap fee is unenforceable. FindLaw text current as of Jan. 1, 2025; no 2023-2026 amendment located
Authority: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-251c · Connecticut med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Connecticut settlement ranges
Delaware
Delaware's schedule drops to 10% on everything above $200,000, one of the steepest declines in the country. The only alternative is a written per diem election made when the attorney is hired.
Authority: 18 Del. C. § 6865 · Delaware med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Delaware settlement ranges
District of Columbia
The District has no statute or rule capping contingency fees in medical-malpractice cases; the Medical Malpractice Proceedings Act (D.C. Code § 16-2801 et seq.) is silent on fees, and Rule 1.5 requires only a reasonable, written contingent-fee agreement stating the percentages. A Congressional Research Service 50-state survey likewise lists no D.C. fee statute.
Authority: D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 · District of Columbia med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · District of Columbia settlement ranges
Florida
Florida's med-mal fee limit is constitutional and self-executing, but the Florida Supreme Court's rule lets clients waive it on a prescribed, notarized form, so most med-mal plaintiffs' firms operate under the general 33 1/3%/40% personal-injury schedule after obtaining the waiver. Art. I, § 26 adopted by voters in 2004 (Amendment 3); Bar rule waiver form added after In re Amendment to Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(B) (Fla. Sup. Ct. No. SC05-1150)
Authority: Fla. Const. art. I, § 26; R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.5(f)(4)(B) · Florida med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Florida settlement ranges
Georgia
Georgia has no statute limiting medical-malpractice attorney fees; contingent-fee agreements must be in writing and reasonable under Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5.
Authority: Ga. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 · Georgia med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Georgia settlement ranges
Hawaii
Hawaii uses judicial approval rather than a fixed percentage: HRS 607-15.5 caps fees at a 'reasonable amount as approved by the court' in every tort case that goes to judgment, and on request in settled cases. Statute text confirmed against the AMA 2026 state-law chart and a CRS 50-state survey.
Authority: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-15.5 · Hawaii med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Hawaii settlement ranges
Idaho
Idaho imposes no cap on medical-malpractice contingency fees. Idaho Code 12-120(4), sometimes cited in surveys, is a fee-shifting provision for small personal-injury claims, not a limit on what counsel may charge a client.
Authority: Idaho R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 · Idaho med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Idaho settlement ranges
Illinois
Illinois replaced its sliding scale with a flat one-third cap in 2013. Older summaries still quote 33 1/3% of the first $150,000, 25% of the next $850,000, and 20% above $1 million; that schedule is no longer in force. Current flat one-third cap effective Jan. 18, 2013 (P.A. 97-1145), replacing the earlier 33 1/3%/25%/20% sliding scale
Authority: 735 ILCS 5/2-1114 · Illinois med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Illinois settlement ranges
Indiana
Indiana's limit is unusual: it applies only to the excess-damages portion paid by the Patient's Compensation Fund, not to the first-layer recovery from the qualified provider. For post-June 30, 2017 malpractice, counsel may take up to 32% of the fund payment. Cap raised from 15% to 32% of fund recoveries for malpractice occurring after June 30, 2017 (2016 legislation)
Authority: Ind. Code § 34-18-18-1 · Indiana med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Indiana settlement ranges
Iowa
Iowa mandates judicial review of the plaintiff's contingent-fee agreement in every malpractice action against a listed licensee or hospital, but sets no numeric ceiling. Last amended 2020 Acts, ch. 1020, §§ 3, 12
Authority: Iowa Code § 147.138 · Iowa med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Iowa settlement ranges
Kansas
Kansas requires the district judge to approve both sides' attorney fees in every medical-malpractice action after an evidentiary hearing, but does not fix a percentage. Amended through 2003 (current version effective 2004)
Authority: K.S.A. 7-121b · Kansas med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Kansas settlement ranges
Kentucky
Kentucky has no statute limiting medical-malpractice attorney fees; SCR 3.130(1.5) requires only a reasonable, written contingent fee.
Authority: Ky. SCR 3.130(1.5) · Kentucky med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Kentucky settlement ranges
Louisiana
The Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act caps damages but not attorney fees. Contingent-fee contracts are governed by La. R.S. 37:218 (written contract, attorney's interest in the claim) and Rule 1.5 reasonableness.
Authority: La. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5; La. R.S. 37:218 · Louisiana med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Louisiana settlement ranges
Maine
Maine's three-tier scale is one of the lowest at the top end (20% above $200,000), but the statute expressly allows a court-approved upward departure when the scheduled fee is inadequate. Enacted P.L. 1985, ch. 804; amended P.L. 1987, ch. 646 and P.L. 2009, ch. 652
Authority: 24 M.R.S. § 2961 · Maine med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Maine settlement ranges
Maryland
Maryland has no percentage cap on med-mal contingency fees. The Health Care Malpractice Claims Act adds only a narrow check: a disputed fee in a malpractice claim must be approved by the arbitration panel or court before it can be collected.
Authority: Md. Rule 19-301.5; Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-07(b) · Maryland med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Maryland settlement ranges
Massachusetts
Massachusetts pairs a four-tier sliding scale with a medical-expense floor: counsel cannot take a fee that leaves the client unable to cover unpaid medical expenses included in the recovery unless the fee is cut to 20% or lower.
Authority: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 60I · Massachusetts med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Massachusetts settlement ranges
Michigan
Michigan's cap is a Supreme Court administrative rule, not a statute, and applies to all personal-injury and wrongful-death contingency work including medical malpractice. Contingent-fee agreements must be in writing and counsel must advise the client that hourly or per diem arrangements exist. One-third cap applies to agreements entered after July 9, 1981; computation subrule amended effective Jan. 1, 2003
Authority: MCR 8.121 · Michigan med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Michigan settlement ranges
Minnesota
Minnesota has no statute capping medical-malpractice contingency fees. The only statutory constraint is computational: the percentage applies to the collateral-source-adjusted award, and subrogated payers share the fee pro rata.
Authority: Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5; Minn. Stat. § 548.251 · Minnesota med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Minnesota settlement ranges
Mississippi
No Mississippi medical-malpractice statute sets an upper limit on attorney fees. The contingency-fee cap in Miss. Code § 7-5-8 applies only to outside counsel retained by the State, not to private malpractice claims.
Authority: Miss. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 · Mississippi med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Mississippi settlement ranges
Missouri
No Missouri medical-malpractice statute limits attorney fees. RSMo 538.220 addresses only timing, presuming a contingent fee is paid when the judgment becomes final even where future damages are paid periodically.
Authority: Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1.5; RSMo § 538.220 · Missouri med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Missouri settlement ranges
Montana
Montana imposes no percentage cap on contingency fees in medical-malpractice cases; fees are governed only by the reasonableness factors of Rule 1.5 of the Montana Rules of Professional Conduct.
Authority: Mont. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) · Montana med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Montana settlement ranges
Nebraska
Nebraska has no statutory percentage cap, but any party may move for judicial review of attorney's fees in a med-mal case and the court sets a reasonable fee. Rule 3-501.5 reasonableness also applies. Enacted Laws 1976, LB 434, § 34; upheld in Prendergast v. Nelson, 199 Neb. 97 (1977). No 2023–2026 amendment noted on the official statute page.
Authority: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-2834 · Nebraska med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Nebraska settlement ranges
Nevada
Nevada moved from a MICRA-style sliding scale to a flat 35% cap on net recovery for professional-negligence claims accruing on or after Oct. 1, 2023 (AB 404). Older accruals keep the 40/33⅓/25/15 tiers. Amended by AB 404 (2023), effective for causes of action accruing on or after Oct. 1, 2023 — replaced the 2004 ballot-initiative sliding scale with a flat 35% cap. NRS history line also lists 2025 amendments; the 35% figure is the current text on the official NRS site as fetched Sept. 2026.
Authority: NRS 7.095 · Nevada med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Nevada settlement ranges
New Hampshire
New Hampshire's 1977 med-mal contingency-fee schedule (RSA 507-C:8) was struck down in Carson v. Maurer and remains unenforceable, so no med-mal-specific cap applies; Rule 1.5 reasonableness and court approval of large settlements govern. RSA 507-C:8 enacted 1977 (eff. Sept. 3, 1977); held unconstitutional under the N.H. equal-protection clause in Carson v. Maurer (1980) and never re-enacted. Text remains on the General Court website (gc.nh.gov) but is not enforceable.
Authority: RSA 507-C:8 (held unconstitutional, Carson v. Maurer, 120 N.H. 925 (1980)); N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 · New Hampshire med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · New Hampshire settlement ranges
New Jersey
New Jersey caps tort contingency fees by court rule on a four-tier sliding scale over the first $3 million of recovery, with court approval required above that; the 2024 Official Comment addressed fee-shifting retainers and left the tiers unchanged. Thresholds raised to $750,000 increments by amendment adopted July 22, 2014 (eff. Sept. 1, 2014). An Official Comment on retainer agreements in statutory fee-shifting cases (Balducci v. Cige) was added Apr. 24, 2024 (eff. Sept. 1, 2024) — no change to the (c) percentages or thresholds. No 2025–2026 amendment to (c) located.
Authority: N.J. Ct. R. 1:21-7(c) · New Jersey med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · New Jersey settlement ranges
New Mexico
New Mexico has no statutory limit on attorney fees in medical-malpractice cases; a 2025 bill (SB 176) proposing 25%/33% caps died in committee. SB 176 (2025 Regular Session) would have added a 'Limiting Attorney Fees' section to the Medical Malpractice Act (25% of pre-trial settlements; 33% after trial or arbitration begins) but failed in the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee (5–4); not enacted.
Authority: None (Medical Malpractice Act, NMSA 1978 ch. 41 art. 5, contains no fee cap) · New Mexico med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · New Mexico settlement ranges
New York
New York's five-tier statutory schedule for medical, dental and podiatric malpractice fees (30/25/20/15/10) is unchanged; a pending 2025 bill to extend and lower it has not moved out of committee. No enacted change 2023–2026. S1608 (2025–26 session) would extend the § 474-a schedule to all personal-injury and property-damage actions and cut every tier by 5 points; it remained in the Senate Judiciary Committee as of Jan. 7, 2026 and has not passed either chamber.
Authority: N.Y. Jud. Law § 474-a · New York med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · New York settlement ranges
North Carolina
North Carolina has no statute limiting attorney contingency fees in medical-malpractice actions; Rule 1.5 reasonableness governs.
Authority: N.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) · North Carolina med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · North Carolina settlement ranges
North Dakota
North Dakota does not limit attorney contingency fees in medical-malpractice cases; only the professional-conduct reasonableness standard applies.
Authority: None (N.D.C.C. ch. 28-01 / 32-03.2 contain no fee cap); N.D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 · North Dakota med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · North Dakota settlement ranges
Ohio
Ohio has no med-mal-specific contingency-fee cap; Rule 1.5 reasonableness governs, with probate-court approval of fees in wrongful-death matters.
Authority: Ohio Prof. Cond. R. 1.5 (no statutory cap) · Ohio med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Ohio settlement ranges
Oklahoma
Oklahoma's general 50%-of-net-recovery ceiling on contingent fees (5 O.S. § 7) applies to medical-malpractice cases as it does to all civil claims; there is no lower med-mal-specific schedule. R.L. 1910, § 248; Laws 1953, p. 15, § 1. No 2023–2026 amendment located.
Authority: 5 O.S. § 7 · Oklahoma med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Oklahoma settlement ranges
Oregon
Oregon has no contingency-fee cap for medical-malpractice recoveries; the only percentage limit is the 20% ceiling on counsel's share of any punitive-damages award under ORS 31.735.
Authority: Or. RPC 1.5 (no statutory cap); ORS 31.735(1)(a) (punitive-damages share) · Oregon med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Oregon settlement ranges
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania imposes no percentage cap on medical-malpractice contingency fees; Rule 1.5 reasonableness governs, with court approval of fees in minors' settlements under Pa.R.C.P. 2039.
Authority: Pa. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap); Pa.R.C.P. 2039 (minors) · Pennsylvania med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Pennsylvania settlement ranges
Rhode Island
Rhode Island has no attorney-fee cap specific to medical-malpractice cases beyond the general reasonableness requirement of Rule 1.5. A 2006 bill (H 7019) proposing tiered med-mal fee limits was not enacted.
Authority: R.I. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) · Rhode Island med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Rhode Island settlement ranges
South Carolina
South Carolina imposes no percentage cap on medical-malpractice contingency fees; only Rule 1.5 reasonableness applies.
Authority: S.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) · South Carolina med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · South Carolina settlement ranges
South Dakota
South Dakota has no med-mal-specific contingency-fee cap; fees are governed by the reasonableness standard of Rule 1.5.
Authority: S.D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) · South Dakota med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · South Dakota settlement ranges
Tennessee
Tennessee caps contingent fees in health care liability actions at one-third of all damages awarded, with the court fixing the reasonable amount within that ceiling. No 2023–2026 amendment located (FindLaw text current as of Jan. 2, 2024).
Authority: Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-120 · Tennessee med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Tennessee settlement ranges
Texas
Texas has no limitation on attorney contingency fees in medical-malpractice (health care liability) cases; Chapter 74 caps damages, not fees.
Authority: None (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 74 contains no fee cap); Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct 1.04 · Texas med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Texas settlement ranges
Utah
Utah caps contingent fees in malpractice actions against health care providers at one-third of the recovery, with no exception for trial or appeal. No 2023–2026 amendment located.
Authority: Utah Code § 78B-3-411 · Utah med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Utah settlement ranges
Vermont
Vermont imposes no percentage cap on medical-malpractice contingency fees; Rule 1.5's eight reasonableness factors govern.
Authority: Vt. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) · Vermont med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Vermont settlement ranges
Virginia
Virginia places no statutory limit on attorney fees in medical-malpractice cases (the Medical Malpractice Act caps damages, not fees); Rule 1.5 reasonableness applies.
Authority: Va. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) · Virginia med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Virginia settlement ranges
Washington
Washington sets no percentage cap but requires the court in every health-care injury action to pass on the reasonableness of each side's attorney fees under the statutory factors. Enacted 1975-76 2nd ex.s. c 56 § 12; no 2023–2026 amendment noted on the official RCW page.
Authority: RCW 7.70.070 · Washington med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Washington settlement ranges
West Virginia
West Virginia does not limit attorney contingency fees in medical-malpractice suits (the Medical Professional Liability Act caps noneconomic damages, not fees); Rule 1.5 reasonableness applies.
Authority: W. Va. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 (no statutory cap) · West Virginia med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · West Virginia settlement ranges
Wisconsin
Wisconsin caps med-mal contingent fees at one-third of the first $1 million (25% if liability is stipulated early) and 20% above $1 million, with court authority to exceed the schedule in exceptional circumstances. Schedule in effect for fees after June 14, 1986 (1985 Wis. Act 340). 2025 Wis. Act 17 (AB 257, Aug. 8, 2025) amended other ch. 655 sections but did not change § 655.013.
Authority: Wis. Stat. § 655.013 · Wisconsin med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Wisconsin settlement ranges
Wyoming
Wyoming's Supreme Court rules set a presumptively reasonable contingent-fee schedule (33⅓%/40% up to $1 million, 30% above) for all casualty cases including medical malpractice; fees above the schedule are permitted but subject to fee-dispute review. Rule 5 amended Jan. 31, 1987 (eff. May 5, 1987); current version posted by the Wyoming Judicial Branch Jan. 2025. No 2023–2026 change to the percentages located.
Authority: Wyo. R. Governing Contingent Fees for Members of the Wyo. State Bar, Rule 5 · Wyoming med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Wyoming settlement ranges
Frequently asked questions
Which states cap attorney contingency fees in medical-malpractice cases?
As of September 2026 the jurisdictions with a med-mal-specific fee statute or court rule include California (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6146), New York (Judiciary Law § 474-a), New Jersey (Court Rule 1:21-7), Connecticut (C.G.S. § 52-251c), Delaware (18 Del. C. § 6865), Florida (Const. art. I, § 26), Illinois (735 ILCS 5/2-1114), Massachusetts (G.L. c. 231, § 60I), Michigan (MCR 8.121), Tennessee (T.C.A. § 29-26-120), Utah (Utah Code § 78B-3-411), Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. § 655.013), Maine (24 M.R.S. § 2961), Nevada (NRS 7.095, 35% for causes of action accruing on or after October 1, 2023), Indiana (Ind. Code § 34-18-18-1, Patient’s Compensation Fund portion only), Oklahoma (5 O.S. § 7, all cases), Wyoming (a presumptive court-rule schedule), and six court-review states with no fixed percentage (Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Washington). The table gives the schedule and the citation for each.
What is the California MICRA attorney fee schedule after AB 35?
AB 35 (effective January 1, 2023) rewrote Bus. & Prof. Code § 6146. The permitted contingency fee now depends on the stage at which the case resolves: 25 percent of the recovery if the case settles before a civil complaint or demand for arbitration is filed, and 33 percent if it settles after filing. A fee above these percentages requires court approval on a showing of good cause. The pre-2023 four-tier scale (40/33⅓/25/15 percent) no longer applies to new cases.
How does New York Judiciary Law § 474-a work?
Section 474-a sets a mandatory sliding scale for medical, dental, and podiatric malpractice cases: 30 percent of the first $250,000 recovered, 25 percent of the next $250,000, 20 percent of the next $500,000, 15 percent of the next $250,000, and 10 percent of any amount over $1,250,000, computed on the net recovery after disbursements. An attorney may apply to the court for a greater fee where the schedule would be inadequate because of extraordinary circumstances.
Is Florida’s constitutional attorney-fee cap actually enforced?
Article I, § 26 of the Florida Constitution (the 2004 "Amendment 3") entitles a med-mal claimant to at least 70 percent of the first $250,000 and 90 percent of any amount above that. In practice, however, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(B) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar to allow a client to waive the constitutional limit by signing a prescribed waiver form, and most plaintiff firms obtain that waiver at intake. The cap therefore functions as a default the client may opt out of, not an absolute ceiling.
What does New Jersey Rule 1:21-7 allow?
Rule 1:21-7(c) governs contingent fees in all tort actions in New Jersey, including medical malpractice. The schedule is 33⅓ percent of the first $750,000 recovered, 30 percent of the next $750,000, 25 percent of the next $750,000, and 20 percent of the next $750,000; on any amount over $3,000,000 the fee is a reasonable amount fixed by the court on application. The $750,000 brackets date from the September 1, 2014 amendment. Fees for minors and incapacitated clients are computed at a lower percentage on amounts recovered by settlement, and an attorney may apply to the Assignment Judge for a fee above the schedule on written notice to the client.
Do fee caps apply to defense counsel or to hourly fees?
No. These statutes and rules regulate contingent fees charged to plaintiffs. Defense fees, which are typically hourly and paid by the professional-liability carrier, are not affected. Several court-review statutes (Arizona, Washington, Nebraska) apply to any fee in a medical-malpractice action but in practice are invoked almost exclusively against plaintiff contingent fees.
Can the client agree to pay more than the statutory limit?
Generally not where the limit is statutory or set by court rule (California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin). Several of those provisions allow the court, on application, to approve a higher fee for extraordinary circumstances. A few states build in a client election: Florida’s constitutional limit is waivable by the client under the Bar rule, Connecticut’s scale may be waived for a substantially complex or unique claim, and Delaware and Nebraska let the client elect a per-diem or non-contingent arrangement instead. In every state the fee must also satisfy the reasonableness requirement of the state’s Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5.
Model the fee before you take the case
Build a case plan that lays out the forum state’s fee schedule alongside the damages cap, expert budget, and sequenced litigation phases, so you know the net-to-client and net-to-firm on a realistic recovery before you sign the engagement letter.
Build my case plan →Corrections welcome: [email protected]. Statutes and rules cited are linked to the text we reviewed; effective dates and later amendments may differ. Nothing on this page is legal advice.