New York: Where It Stands Among States With Fee Caps

Two tracks, not one

Compare New York's approach to New Jersey's: New Jersey applies its Rule 1:21-7 sliding scale broadly to tort claims generally, including products liability. New York splits the two categories apart entirely — a general one-third presumption for ordinary personal injury and wrongful death claims, and a separate, specifically malpractice-only hard sliding scale written into Judiciary Law § 474-a.

A notably low bottom tier

New York's malpractice fee schedule bottoms out at just 10% on amounts recovered above $1,250,000 — a genuinely low rate for the portion of a large recovery that often requires the most litigation effort to obtain. This is precisely why the schedule includes its own escape valve: an attorney can apply for an enhanced fee based on extraordinary circumstances where the standard schedule would leave them without adequate compensation.

A presumption, not an absolute ceiling, for ordinary claims

The one-third figure governing most New York personal injury claims works differently than the malpractice schedule. It's a presumption that a fee at or below that level is fair and reasonable — a practical ceiling almost universally followed, but not framed as an absolute statutory maximum the way Judiciary Law 474-a is for malpractice.

A recognizable national pattern, applied distinctively here

Pairing a general reasonableness-or-presumption standard for personal injury broadly with a stricter, malpractice-specific statutory schedule is a pattern seen in a handful of states. New York's version is distinctive for just how far its malpractice schedule's bottom tier drops, and for how explicitly the statute was written to override the more general court-rule presumption.

New York's fee structure — frequently asked questions

Does New York's fee structure resemble New Jersey's sliding scale?

Only for malpractice. New Jersey applies its sliding scale to tort claims generally, while New York reserves its hard sliding scale specifically for medical, dental, and podiatric malpractice, leaving ordinary injury claims under a separate one-third presumption.

Is New York's malpractice fee schedule unusually low compared to other states?

Its bottom tier is notably low — 10% on amounts recovered above $1,250,000 — which commentators have noted can place real pressure on attorneys handling large, complex malpractice cases, prompting the enhanced-fee application process that exists specifically to address this.

Does New York's one-third presumption for ordinary injury claims work like a hard cap?

Not exactly — it's a presumption that a fee at or below one-third is fair and reasonable, which functions as a practical ceiling in most cases without being an absolute statutory maximum the way the malpractice schedule is.

Why does New York treat malpractice fees so differently from ordinary injury fees?

The malpractice-specific schedule reflects a policy choice, written directly into Judiciary Law, to limit what attorneys can charge in this particular category of claim — a choice the legislature made explicitly "notwithstanding" the more general court-rule presumption.

Is a two-track fee system like New York's common among states?

It's one recognizable pattern nationally — a general reasonableness or presumptive standard for personal injury broadly, paired with a stricter, malpractice-specific statutory schedule, distinct from states that either cap everything or cap nothing by statute.

This page provides general guidance only and is not legal advice. Figures are based on Judiciary Law § 474-a and general New York contingency fee practice, verified per our methodology. Confirm how current rules apply to a specific claim with a licensed attorney in the relevant state before acting.