Prohibits an attorney from contracting for or collecting certain fees. (BDR 1-1016)
Summary
SB365 would cap contingency fees for attorneys representing plaintiffs in most civil actions at 20 percent of the amount recovered. The bill applies to fees based on settlements, arbitration awards, and judgments, and it defines “recovered” as the net amount after deducting disbursements or costs connected to prosecuting or settling the claim. The measure excludes two existing categories from the new cap: medical malpractice cases governed by NRS 7.095 and certain state-agency contingent-fee contracts governed by NRS 228.1116.
The bill also specifies that the new limit applies only to contracts entered into on or after October 1, 2025. In practical terms, it would change how attorneys may structure fee agreements in civil litigation by limiting the percentage they can contract for or collect, while leaving existing statutory exceptions in place.
Impact
SB365 would amend Chapter 7 of the Nevada Revised Statutes by creating a new statewide cap on contingency fees in civil cases, generally limiting attorney fees to 20 percent of the net recovery. It would affect plaintiff-side attorneys and clients in civil actions, as well as the enforceability of future contingent-fee contracts, but would not alter the separate fee rules already applicable to health care professional negligence cases or certain state agency representation contracts. The bill is prospective only, applying to contracts entered into on or after October 1, 2025.
Sentiment
Based on the available materials, the bill appears to be framed as a consumer-protection or fee-limitation measure, with no recorded committee testimony or votes to indicate organized support or opposition. The absence of transcripts and voting history means there is no documented public debate in the provided record, but the bill’s structure suggests an intent to restrain attorney compensation in most civil cases while preserving existing exceptions.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns whether a 20 percent cap is too restrictive for plaintiff representation, especially in complex or high-risk cases where contingency fees are used to offset litigation costs and the risk of nonpayment. Attorneys and trial-law stakeholders may argue that the cap could reduce access to counsel for some claimants or make certain cases economically infeasible, while supporters may view it as a way to protect plaintiffs from excessive fee arrangements and preserve more of the recovery for injured parties. The bill’s explicit carve-outs for medical malpractice and state-agency contracts also suggest that the scope of the cap, rather than the concept of fee limits itself, is the likely area of dispute.
Relating to selection of an attorney by an indigent parent as attorney ad litem for the parent in certain suits affecting the parent-child relationship.