Is contingency fee unconstitutional? And does it promote discrimination?

Question

I keep reading these claims that "without contingency fees, most people would not be able to access the legal system. This would tip the scales of justice in favor of those with money." But what if I did have the money to afford a lawyer, I guess that would make it easier, youd think. But unfortunately theres no personal injury attorneys who dont work on cont. fee. So that claim is false, because it forces you to go contingency fee, which means the lawyers are in total control of what cases are deemed important, which is only the ones that get them lots of $$$. Total joke.

Robert Kane · Answer

So you are willing and able to pay attorney fees and submit a retainer ($,) and attorneys won't take you case?

Tim Akpinar · Answer

I'm not aware of any constitutional challenges, whether on equal protection, due process, or other grounds. It's possible there could be research on the subject in law review papers or constitutional law websites. Good luck

Margaret Ann Sedy · Answer

I know a ton of attorneys that take PI cases when the policy limits are only $15k.  So on a case where the max you can get is $15k, would you rather have the attorney take it on continency, or pay $300+ per hour, w/o any guarantee you will get the 13k, plus you have to pay for all costs if you file suit. The contingency fee covers the risk the attorney is taking, e.g., if no award or very little award, attorney is likely loosing a ton of money and you've paid zero.  Even thought the retainer agreements say you are ultimately responsible for costs, most attorneys will waive it if the net recovery is negative.

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

Under California law, contingency fees are not unconstitutional. They are a widely accepted practice in the legal profession, especially in personal injury cases. These fees allow individuals who may not have the financial means to pay an attorney upfront to still seek legal representation. 
 
Contingency fees do create a situation where attorneys may choose cases with a higher likelihood of a significant payout. This choice is often based on the potential value of the case and the likelihood of winning, rather than the client's ability to pay upfront. 
 
However, it's not true that all personal injury attorneys only work on a contingency fee basis. Some may offer alternative billing arrangements, but these might be less common in practice. The perception that attorneys are in total control of which cases are deemed important is influenced by the fact that they often assess the financial viability of a case before taking it on. 
 
This system can indeed create challenges for those seeking legal representation in cases that may not promise high financial returns. Yet, the contingency fee model also plays a vital role in ensuring access to the legal system for many who otherwise couldn't afford it. It's a balance between providing access and the economic realities of legal practice.

Q: Is contingency fee unconstitutional? And does it promote discrimination?