{"id":24246,"date":"2026-05-10T15:39:44","date_gmt":"2026-05-10T19:39:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/?page_id=24246"},"modified":"2026-05-10T15:50:44","modified_gmt":"2026-05-10T19:50:44","slug":"competition-and-contingency-fees","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/in-print\/volume-114\/volume-114-issue-3-february-2026\/competition-and-contingency-fees\/","title":{"rendered":"Competition and Contingency Fees"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"p1\"><i>A debate has long raged concerning whether the contingency fee market <\/i><i>for legal services is or is not competitive. The debate has been fierce because <\/i><i>its stakes are sky high. If the market is competitive, current efforts to cut or <\/i><i>cap contingency fees are clearly wrong-headed. If the opposite, then at least <\/i><i>some efforts to address the market failure probably make sense.<\/i><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><i>Leveraging the results of a novel empirical study and drawing from <\/i><i>both classical and behavioral economics, this <\/i><i>Article assembles the best evi<\/i><i>dence to date to resolve that age-old question. We find that, much like the <\/i><i>market for brokerage services in residential <\/i><i>real estate, the contingency fee <\/i><i>market for personal injury (PI) representation is neither efficient nor com<\/i><i>petitive. The market for PI representation does not behave like a competitive <\/i><i>market, and the preconditions for competition are lacking. Mirroring the <\/i><i>brokerage market, fees are not salient to consumers of legal services, and <\/i><i>stubborn informational asymmetries cloud consumer search.<\/i><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><i>Even so, contingency fee caps<\/i><span class=\"s1\">\u2014<\/span><i>many reformers\u2019 <\/i><i>reflexive fix<\/i><span class=\"s1\">\u2014<\/span><i>are not <\/i><i>the answer. Price controls are generally harmful, and they are particularly <\/i><i>counterproductive when deployed in this context. Rather than promoting <\/i><i>access to legal services or reducing principal-agent problems, caps can be <\/i><i>counted on to restrict access and skew attorney incentives. Perhaps worse, <\/i><i>caps are regressive. Those who are already disadvantaged bear the brunt of <\/i><i>this reform.<\/i><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><i>We have a better idea. Because the problems we identify are chiefly <\/i><i>traceable to inadequate information, policymakers ought to use <\/i><span class=\"s1\">\u201c<\/span><i>closing <\/i><i>statements<\/i><span class=\"s1\">\u201d <\/span><i>to get proper information into consumers\u2019 hands.<\/i><\/p>\n<p>Continue reading <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/26\/2026\/05\/Engstrom-and-Holland-Stergar_Competition-and-Contingency-Fees.pdf\"><em><strong>Competition and Contingency Fees<\/strong><\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/26\/2026\/05\/Engstrom-and-Holland-Stergar_Competition-and-Contingency-Fees.pdf\" class=\"pdfemb-viewer\" style=\"\" data-width=\"max\" data-height=\"max\" data-toolbar=\"bottom\" data-toolbar-fixed=\"off\">Engstrom-and-Holland-Stergar_Competition-and-Contingency-Fees<\/a>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A debate has long raged concerning whether the contingency fee market for legal services is or is not competitive. The debate has been fierce because its stakes are sky high. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13871,"featured_media":0,"parent":24239,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-24246","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24246","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13871"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24246"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24246\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24258,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24246\/revisions\/24258"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24239"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}