Talk:Contingent fee

message: the no win no fee is a furphy as it depends on the definition of win. Kisstheearth (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The article is almost entirely original research, and spotty original research at that.  There's no mention of the controversy over contingent fees in the US (e.g., state AGs paying billion tobacco lawyers, or the number of notable cases where lawyers abused contingent fees to leave their clients worse off), no mention of legislation seeking to regulate contingent fees (such as the Class Action Fairness Act), and no mention of the extensive law review literature both for and against contingent fees.  Article needs a complete top-to-bottom rewrite. THF (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: * Support.  No need for separate articles so long as country differences are spelled out in separate sections.  Bear in mind that No win no fee appears to be an uncited collection of original research.  --CliffC (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from [[No win no fee]] 

message: I wonder what the relation is with "no cure no pay". It may one of those (apparently) English expressions that is only used in the Dutch language, in particular to refer to an (allegedly) American practice of attorneys only to ask a fee if they are successful, i.e. if a (100%) contingency fee is applied. This is strictly prohibited under Dutch law: the Dutch do not perceive attorneys as yet another type of commercial consultants, but as agents with a delicate position in the process of law, that would suffer if it would be exposed to the potential perverse incentives of a really free market.
Rbakels (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct phrase in English is "no win no fee."  Also, it is generally unprofessional conduct in the U.S. to ask for a 100% contingency fee; usually the maximum that lawyers can get away with is 40%.  That phrase you've mentioned is definitely wrong and clearly mangles the original.  It must be a Dutch version of Engrish! --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the helpful reply. Still one question: 100% of what? The attorney clearly can not claim all of the damages, but my understanding is that there are cases (in the US) where the attorney does not ask a fee at all if he is unsuccessful? Am I wrong? Rbakels (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No cure No Pay" 

message: I removed a reference tag that was screwing up the page formatting. I could not determine to what the reference applied. It was "New Westminister Registry case No. New S-S-140748"
Nsayer (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stray reference removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Contingent fee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101211112142/http://communitylegaladvice.org.uk/media/808/FC/leaflet12e.pdf to http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/media/808/FC/leaflet12e.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090330171733/http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing/payingforservices/nowinnofee.law to http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing/payingforservices/nowinnofee.law
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified