Scope is where Michigan genuinely differs
Illinois caps contingency fees at a flat 33⅓%, but only in medical malpractice cases — an ordinary car accident or slip-and-fall case there carries no statutory fee cap at all. Michigan Court Rule 8.121 applies the identical one-third rate, but to essentially every personal injury and wrongful death claim, plus no-fault benefits claims. The rate happens to land in the same place as Illinois's malpractice-only figure; the reach is categorically broader.
A flat rate vs. a declining schedule
Massachusetts's medical malpractice fee schedule starts higher, at 40% on the first $150,000, before declining through 33⅓%, 30%, and 25% as the recovery grows. Michigan's one-third rate doesn't decline at all — it's a single ceiling applied uniformly, whatever the size of the recovery, but only up to that ceiling; it's also simply a different design choice than a sliding scale, not a stricter or looser one in isolation.
Why a flat rate is easier to apply broadly
A single flat percentage is simpler to enforce uniformly across a wide range of claim types, which may be part of why Michigan's rule reaches so much further than a typical sliding scale: a declining, multi-tier schedule is generally easier to justify and administer when reserved for one specific, often high-value case type like medical malpractice, rather than applied across the board.
Which approach costs more depends on the case
Because Michigan's flat one-third is actually higher than the bottom tiers of a declining schedule like Massachusetts's, a large Michigan recovery can carry a higher effective fee rate than the equivalent recovery would under a sliding-scale state's top tier — the broader reach doesn't automatically mean a cheaper fee on any individual claim.
The flat rate has survived past reform efforts
A legislative proposal once floated replacing Michigan's flat rule with its own declining sliding scale, but it did not become law. The one-third ceiling under MCR 8.121 remains the current, unchanged rule.