A broader proposal than the usual medical-malpractice carve-out
Most states that write a specific contingency fee cap into statute limit it to medical malpractice claims. A 2014 Missouri bill, backed by the Senate's Majority Floor Leader, went further — it would have capped contingency fees at 33% of total damages in the aggregate across damages cases more broadly, not limited to malpractice specifically. The bill's text stated that "in no case shall an attorney collect fees, charges, or any other costs which in the aggregate total more than thirty-three percent of the total damages."
The coalition lines on both sides
The 2014 proposal drew support from the Missouri Insurance Coalition, the state's medical association, and the Missouri Chamber of Commerce — interests that routinely favor tort reform measures. The Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys opposed it, arguing that the contingency structure itself already aligns an attorney's incentives with the client's, without needing a separately imposed ceiling.
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 — but limited to that one case type. Missouri's 2014 proposal would have gone broader in scope while landing at nearly the identical rate. Neither version became Missouri law; the percentage remains set entirely by private agreement, reviewed only against Rule 4-1.5(a)'s reasonableness standard if it's ever challenged.
Missouri'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 Missouri does it today, or a specific statutory percentage ceiling, usually reserved for medical malpractice specifically. Given that Missouri came reasonably close to enacting a broader cap once, in 2014, it's worth watching whether a similar proposal resurfaces as part of some future tort reform push.