The core promise: no recovery, no fee
A contingency fee means the attorney's fee is contingent — dependent — on actually winning or settling the case. If there's no recovery at all, the client generally owes no attorney fee, regardless of how much work went into the case.
A real dispute that tested Rule 1.5 directly
In Moncrieffe v. Deno (2023), two Virginia attorneys who had worked together disagreed sharply over a fee split: one argued the proper figure was one-third of the recovery, the other claimed the agreed percentage was only 7.5%. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the trial court's finding that the one-third fee was reasonable under Rule 1.5, with the attorney seeking that fee bearing the burden of proving its reasonableness — a burden the court found was met.
What Rule 1.5 actually requires in writing
Rule 1.5(c) requires a contingency fee agreement to state in writing the method by which the fee will be determined, including the percentage and whether litigation and other expenses will be deducted before or after the contingent fee itself is calculated — a detail that can meaningfully affect what the client nets.
No fixed formula, just factors to weigh
Rule 1.5 doesn't supply a numeric formula for reasonableness. It lists factors — the time and labor required, the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar work, the experience and ability of the attorney, and whether the fee is fixed or contingent — leaving the final figure to case-by-case judgment rather than a statutory percentage.
A commonly used figure in practice
One-third of the recovery is a commonly cited figure in Virginia personal injury practice, as reflected in the Moncrieffe dispute itself. The rate remains negotiable between attorney and client, subject always to the Rule 1.5 reasonableness standard.