Uber Targets Attorney Fees in Nevada Ballot Measure
A controversial measure to cap attorney fees in Nevada is facing legal challenges as advocates clash over its potential impact on victims’ rights. The proposed initiative, supported by rideshare giant Uber, seeks to limit lawyer contingency fees in civil cases to 20%, sparking a heated debate over access to justice and corporate accountability.
The measure, already backed by more than 200,000 Nevada voters locked in a legal battle over its legality. If approved,
it will appear on the 2026 general election ballot.
Capping Fees: Opponents Cry Foul
Supporters of the measure argue it will protect victims by ensuring they receive a larger portion of any settlements. They argue that
with no limit on attorney fees, lawyers can charge exorbitantly, leaving victims with less money to recover from incidents and pay medical bills.
However, opponents argue the measure is a bar to justice.
Udber advocates argue the proposed 20% cap could make it difficult for Nevadans to find legal counsel,
particularly in appellate and complex litigation.
“This is a calculated tactic by Uber to side-step accountability for the countless sexual assault
cases and other harms it has enabled, while protecting their profits at the expense of victims’ access to justice,”
said Deepak Gupta, a lawyer who represents Uber software developers and drivers.
“This deceptive ballot measure would block countless Nevadans from seeking justice in
the courts when they are harmed, injured, or cheated. We are hopeful that the
Nevada Supreme Court will declare this deceptive initiative void.”
The effort comes as Uber faces hundreds of lawsuits, alongside criticisms. , The New York Times reporting that many driver background checks “failed to adequately screen and perform
background checks on drivers who went on to sexually assault them’,”
according to a new report by the Times.
Limits Would Significantly Reduce Current Rates
Nevada currently sets caps for attorney fees in specific cases, like medical malpractice, which is limited to
35%.
Those representing the state of Nevada are
capped at 25%.
The proposed initiative would represent a
substantial decrease from the current rate, typically setting free-market
attorney fees between 33% to 40%.
Nevadans for Fair Recovery, the Backed by Uber, underlining stark divisions on this campaign’s effectiveness. Proponents of the measure argue
that suitors should keep
the protection of keeping as much of their
settlements as possible.
The
measure’s fate hinges on a decision by the Nevada Supreme Court, which is
currently reviewing its legality. Several legal analysts
suggest that the case could set a precedent for
limits on attorney fees in other states
What are the potential benefits and drawbacks for victims seeking legal representation if a 20% cap on attorney contingency fees is implemented in Nevada?
## Access to Justice on the Ballot: A Heated Debate in Nevada
**Host:** Welcome back to the show. Today, we’re diving into a contentious issue brewing in Nevada: a ballot measure seeking to cap attorney fees. This proposal, backed by rideshare giant Uber, proposes limiting lawyer contingency fees in civil cases to 20%. With us today to discuss the implications of this measure is [Alex Reed name and credentials], an expert in [Alex Reed area of expertise].
**[Alex Reed name]:** Thanks for having me.
**Host:** So, let’s start with the basics. Tell us a little bit about this measure and why it’s generating so much controversy.
**[Alex Reed name]:** Essentially, this measure aims to limit the percentage lawyers can take from any settlement their clients receive in civil cases. Proponents, like Uber, argue that this will protect victims by ensuring they get a larger portion of their settlements. They say without a cap, attorney fees can become exorbitant, leaving victims with less money to recover from hardships.
**Host:** That sounds straightforward enough, but clearly, there’s opposition.
**[Alex Reed name]:** Absolutely. Opponents argue that this cap could make it extremely difficult for Nevadans, especially those seeking representation in complex litigation, to find legal counsel. They believe a 20% cap offers insufficient compensation for lawyers, especially when factoring in the time and resources needed for these cases.
**Host:** We see this playing out in courts right now, correct?
**[Alex Reed name]:** That’s right. The measure has already gained significant voter support but is facing legal challenges regarding its legality. If it ultimately makes it to the 2026 ballot, it will be up to Nevada voters to decide its fate. This raises crucial questions about access to justice and the balance of power between corporations and individuals seeking legal recourse.
**Host:** Indeed, a complex issue with potentially far-reaching consequences.
[Alex Reed name]: Definitely. This debate will likely continue to unfold as the legal challenges play out, and we inch closer to the 2026 election.
**Host:** [Alex Reed name], thank you for shedding light on this important issue. We appreciate your time and insights.
[[1](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/will-ubers-measure-to-cap-attorneys-fees-be-on-the-ballot-nevada-supreme-court-to-decide/ar-AA1vlFrU)]
