A 2005 attempt that didn't become law
House Bill 1215, introduced in the Maryland General Assembly's 2005 session, would have barred an attorney from contracting for or collecting a contingency fee above specified limits for representing a claimant against a health care provider for a medical injury. Violations would have been subject to Maryland Rules disciplinary action, including disbarment or suspension. The bill's fiscal note described this as a change from "current law," under which Maryland Rules simply require a fee to be reasonable — and that remains the operative standard today.
A genuine contrast with states that write in a number
Compare this to a state like Illinois, which caps medical malpractice attorney fees at a flat 33⅓%, written directly into statute. Maryland has no equivalent provision in force — the percentage is set entirely by private agreement between attorney and client, reviewed only against Rule 19-301.5's reasonableness standard if it's ever challenged.
Two separate issues, often confused
It's worth being clear that Maryland's noneconomic damages cap — which limits what a claimant can recover for pain and suffering — is an entirely separate issue from attorney fees. The damages cap affects the size of the pot being divided; it has no bearing on what percentage of that pot the attorney is entitled to charge.
Maryland's approach is one of two common national patterns
Nationally, states regulating personal injury contingency fees tend to fall into one of two camps: a general reasonableness standard, the way Maryland does it, or a specific statutory percentage ceiling, usually reserved for medical malpractice specifically. Given that Maryland has already considered a fee cap once, in 2005, it's reasonable to expect similar proposals to resurface periodically as part of broader tort reform discussions.