Nevada's Blocked 20% Attorney Fee Ballot Initiative

An Uber-backed push for the strictest contingency fee cap in the country made it past 200,000 signatures — then was unanimously blocked by Nevada's own Supreme Court.

A ballot push for the strictest cap in the country

Starting in 2024, a political action committee called "Nevadans for Fair Recovery" — funded entirely by Uber — pursued a ballot initiative that would have capped contingency fees at 20% across every civil case in Nevada, from personal injury to discrimination and consumer protection claims. At the time, commentators noted this would have been the strictest contingency fee cap in the country, surpassing the two states then known for general civil fee caps: Oklahoma at 50% and Michigan at 33%.

Blocked by Nevada's own Supreme Court

The petition cleared the signature threshold, gathering more than 200,000 signatures — roughly double what was legally required. But opponents, including the Nevada Justice Association and a group called Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability, challenged its legal sufficiency. On January 27, 2025, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the initiative's description of effect was "misleading and confusing," specifically citing unresolved ambiguity about whether the 20% cap would apply to medical malpractice cases already capped at 35%, or to attorneys representing the State of Nevada under their own separate rules.

Off the table for 2026

The ruling means the measure will not go before the Nevada Legislature or appear on the November 2026 general election ballot, despite the scale of the signature-gathering effort behind it. As of this writing, Nevada's only attorney fee ceilings remain the specific ones already in place: the flat 35% medical malpractice cap and the 25% cap for attorneys contracted to represent the state.

A genuine contrast with states that cap by statute

Where a state like Illinois writes a flat medical malpractice fee cap directly into statute through the ordinary legislative process, Nevada's most significant recent fee-cap fight played out instead through the ballot-initiative process — and was decided not by voters, but by the state's highest court ruling on the clarity of the proposal's own language before it ever reached them.

Nevada's blocked fee-cap initiative — frequently asked questions

What was the Nevadans for Fair Recovery ballot initiative?

An Uber-backed proposal that would have capped attorney contingency fees at 20% across all Nevada civil cases, which supporters said would have been the strictest such cap in the country.

Why did the Nevada Supreme Court block the initiative?

The court ruled unanimously that the initiative's description of effect was misleading and confusing, specifically flagging ambiguity about whether it would apply to medical malpractice cases and cases where private attorneys represent the state.

Will Nevada voters see this measure on the 2026 ballot?

No. The Supreme Court's January 2025 ruling blocked the petition's path to both the 2025 legislative session and the November 2026 ballot, despite more than 200,000 signatures having been submitted in support.

Does Nevada currently have any attorney fee cap at all?

Yes, but only in specific circumstances — medical malpractice fees are capped at a flat 35%, and attorneys contracted to represent the State of Nevada face a separate 25% cap. Ordinary personal injury fees remain uncapped.

How does Nevada's blocked 20% proposal compare to fee caps that do exist elsewhere?

At the time it was proposed, commentators noted only two states had general civil attorney fee caps — Oklahoma at 50% and Michigan at 33% — making Nevada's proposed 20% figure notably stricter than either.

This page provides general guidance only and is not legal advice. Figures are based on reported coverage of the Nevadans for Fair Recovery ballot initiative and the January 27, 2025 Nevada Supreme Court ruling, verified per our methodology. Confirm how current rules apply to a specific claim with a licensed attorney in the relevant state before acting.