Citations (6)


Footnotes (104)



Seven Dogged Myths Concerning Contingency Fees

Herbert M. Kritzer

University of Minnesota Law School

Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol. 80, pp. 739-794, 2002

Myths and misinformation abounds concerning the American contingency fee system. In this paper I discuss seven common perceptions about contingency fees and present evidence that each is mistaken. The seven issues considered are (1) contingency fees are peculiarly American, (2) most contingency fee cases involve little risk, (3) advertising by the plaintiffs' bar has produced a flood of clients seeking compensation, (4) contingency fee lawyers accept most cases that potential clients bring to them, (5) contingency fee lawyers charge a standard fee of one-third of the recovery, (6) lawyers routinely obtain windfalls from contingency fees, and (7) the interests of contingency fee lawyers and their clients are routinely in conflict. The analysis in this paper draws heavily on material discussed in 'Risks, Reputations, and Rewards: Contingency Fee Legal Practice in the United States' (SSRN Abstract No. 572883).

Number of Pages in PDF File: 46

Keywords: Contingent fee, contingency fee, tort, plaintiff, lawyer

Accepted Paper Series

Download This Paper

Date posted: June 14, 2006  

Suggested Citation

Kritzer, Herbert M., Seven Dogged Myths Concerning Contingency Fees. Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol. 80, pp. 739-794, 2002. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=907863

Contact Information

Herbert M. Kritzer (Contact Author)
University of Minnesota Law School ( email )
229 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,172
Downloads: 218
Download Rank: 77,117
Citations:  6
Footnotes:  104

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.312 seconds