What's happening
This bill raises and simplifies the allowable contingency fee structure for attorneys in medical, dental, and podiatric malpractice cases through 2020, then aligns them with general personal injury rules starting in 2021.
Why it matters
May increase access to legal representation. for patients with potential malpractice claims, since higher and simplified contingency fees could incentivize more attorneys to take on these complex and costly cases.
Could affect physician and malpractice insurance costs. because higher or more frequent payouts to plaintiffs (and their attorneys) might ultimately be passed on to medical practitioners through increased insurance premiums.
Aligns medical malpractice fee rules with broader personal injury standards after 2020. , potentially reducing confusion and administrative burdens for lawyers and courts by unifying the rules across case types.
Eliminates several existing restrictions and requirements. (by repealing subdivisions 3, 4, and 5), which may streamline litigation but also removes certain consumer protections or procedural safeguards previously in place.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Limit Malpractice Lawyer Fees
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Referred to judiciary
- Referred to rules
Companion bill
The same bill in the other chamber. A bill becomes law when one version passes both houses and the governor signs it, so either number can carry it.
Limit Malpractice Lawyer Fees
In Assembly Committee · Judiciary · Sponsor Helene Weinstein
Full text
2 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
6803
2017-2018 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
June 18, 2017
Introduced by Sen. DeFRANCISCO -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Rules
AN ACT to amend the judiciary law, in relation to the maximum allowable amount of contingency fees in medical, dental and podiatric malpractice actions; and to repeal certain provisions of such law relating thereto
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Subdivision 2 of section 474-a of the judiciary law, as amended by chapter 485 of the laws of 1986, is amended to read as follows:
2. Notwithstanding any inconsistent judicial rule, a contingent fee in a medical, dental or podiatric malpractice action shall not exceed the amount of compensation provided for in the following schedule for cases decided prior to December thirty-first, two thousand eighteen:
30 percent of the first [$250,000] $500,000 of the sum
recovered;
[25 percent of the next $250,000 of the sum recovered;
20] 25 percent of the next $500,000 of the sum recovered;
[15] 20 percent of the next $250,000 of the sum
recovered;
[10] 15 percent of any amount over $1,250,000 of the sum
recovered;
and notwithstanding any inconsistent judicial rule, a contingent fee in a medical, dental or podiatric malpractice action shall not exceed the amount of compensation provided for in the following schedule for cases decided from January first, two thousand nineteen through December thirty-first, two thousand nineteen:
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD13270-02-7
S. 6803 2
30 percent of the first $1,000,000 of the sum recovered;
25 percent of the next $250,000 of the sum recovered;
20 percent of any amount over $1,250,000 of the sum recovered;
and notwithstanding any inconsistent judicial rule, a contingent fee in a medical, dental or podiatric malpractice action shall not exceed the amount of compensation provided for in the following schedule for cases decided from January first, two thousand twenty through December thirty-first, two thousand twenty:
30 percent of the first $1,250,000 of the sum recovered;
25 percent of any amount over $1,250,000 of the sum recovered;
and after December thirty-first, two thousand twenty, contingency fees in medical, dental and podiatric malpractice actions shall be governed by the rules applicable to all other personal injury and wrongful death actions.
§ 2. Subdivisions 3, 4 and 5 of section 474-a of the judiciary law are REPEALED.
§ 3. This act shall take effect immediately; provided, however, that section two of this act shall take effect January 1, 2021.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the judiciary law, in relation to the maximum allowable amount of contingency fees in medical, dental and podiatric malpractice actions; and to repeal certain provisions of such law relating thereto
Purpose of bill
To repeal Section 474-a of the Judiciary Law relating to contingent fees in medical, dental or podiatric negligence cases.
Justification
Since this statute was passed, experience has shown that the sliding scale fee schedule works to the detriment of the injured citizen. It creates an inherent conflict between the interest of the injured patient and the attorney that has agreed to take on the task of proving the case. An example would be as follows:
An attorney believes a case may well bring a verdict of at least 1.5 million dollars. He or she is offered five hundred thousand dollars. Below is the application of the fee formula set forth in the existing Section 474-a:
30% of the 1st $250,000 = $75,000
25% of the 2nd $250,000 = $62,500
20% of next $500,000 = $100,000
15% of next $250,000 = $37,000
10% of the balance ($250,000) = $25,000
It can be seen that the fee schedule encourages lawyers to recommend their client settle rather than go to trial. This exact rationale is set forth in the Governor's Program Bill Memorandum in Support, and reads as follows: "By permitting attorneys to recover 30% of smaller awards and a declining percentage thereafter, attorneys would be encouraged to accept reasonable settlements that protect the plaintiffs interest."
This statement exhibits a total misunderstanding of an attorney/ client relationship. It is the client who accepts a settlement, not the lawyer.
If the purpose of the bill was "to encourage lawyers" by pitting them against the interests of their own clients, then such bill may have been successful, but its intent and result are volitive of Ethical Consideration 5-1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that "The professional judgment of a lawyer should be exercised, within the bounds of the law, solely for the benefit of his client and free of compromising influences and loyalties. Neither his personal interest, the interests of other clients, nor the desires of third persons should be permitted to dilute his loyalty to his client".
Ethical Consideration 5-2 provides, in part, that a lawyer should not accept a case if there is a reasonable probability that his personal interest will adversely affect the advice given the client. That same consideration maintains that a lawyer should not assume a position which would tend to make his judgment less protective of his client's interests. For these reasons, Section 474-a of the Judiciary Law should be repealed. Same would be accomplished herein pursuant by phasing out the sliding scale fee schedule set forth in said section such that by January 1, 2021, same would be completely repealed.
Legislative history
New Bill, but similar to 1999-2000 A.8762 (Rules) Vetoed. Memo. 47.
Fiscal implications for state and local governments
None.
Effective date
Immediately, but full repeal of Judiciary Law Sec. 474-a would not be effective until January 1, 2021.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.