California Proposition 202 (1996)
From Ballotpedia
Contents |
California Proposition 202, also known as the Attorney's Contingency Fees/Limits Initiative was on the March 26, 1996 primary election ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated.
Proposition 202 was an effort to alter California's Business and Professions Code through the initiative process. If it had been approved, it would have capped at 15% the amount of so-called "contingency fees" that attorneys or law firms were allowed to charge their clients, in cases where the defendant made a prompt offer to settle.
Election results
| California Proposition 202 (1996) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage | ||||
| Yes | 48.8% | |||
No 
| 51.2% | |||
| Total votes | 100% | |||
Ballot language
The ballot summary that appeared on the ballot said:
- Limits fees which plaintiffs' attorneys may collect, if payable contingent on plaintiffs' recovery of compensation, in personal injury, wrongful death, other tort cases. Hourly rates not limited
- Requires demand against defendants for compensation with supporting information. Allows defendants to respond with prompt settlement offer with supporting information. If accepted, plaintiffs' attorneys may not collect contingent fees exc eeding 15% of defendants' offer. If not accepted, they may collect fees above 15% only on part of recovery in excess of defendants' prompt settlement offer.
- Fiduciary relationship applies to fee agreement between plaintiff, plaintiff's attorney.
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 202. That estimate was:
- Adoption of this measure would have an unknown net fiscal impact on state and local governments.
Campaign donations
Supporters and opponents of Proposition 202 also supported or opposed Prop 200 and Prop 201. As a result, several campaign committees in 1996 raised and spent money for campaigns relating to all three ballot measures and, in the case of one or two campaign committees, several additional ballot propositions.
Single committees
According to the campaign finance reporting system sponsored by the California Secretary of State, no campaign committees raised or spent money exclusively to support or oppose Proposition 202.[1]
Multiple supporters
- The "Alliance to Revitalize California" spent $15.7 million cumulatively in a campaign to support Prop 200, Prop 201 and Prop 202.[2]
- A group called "Voter Revolt to Cut Insurance Rates" spent $247,561 cumulatively in a campaign to support Prop 200, Prop 201 and Prop 202.[3]
- A group called "Taxpayers Against Frivolous Lawsuits" spent $38.2 million cumulatively in a campaign to support Prop 192, Prop 200, Prop 201, Prop 202, Prop 203 and Prop 204.[4]
- The group called "California Business PAC" spent about $1.8 million cumulatively in a campaign to support Prop 192, Prop 200, Prop 201, Prop 202, Prop 203 and Prop 204. From the same pool of money ($1.8 million) this group also opposed propositions 207, 208, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216 and 217.[5]
Multiple opponents
- A group called "Citizens Against Phony Initiatives" spent $113,045 cumulatively in a campaign to oppose Prop 200, Prop 201 and Prop 202.[6]
- A group called "Citizens for Retirement Protection and Security" spent $12.3 million cumulatively in a campaign to oppose Prop 200, Prop 201 and Prop 202 and to support Prop 211.[7]
- A group called "Frivolous Lawsuit Reform" spent $7.9 million cumulatively in a campaign to oppose Prop 200, Prop 201 and Prop 202 and to support Prop 207.[8]
- A group called "Consumer Attorneys Issues PAC" spent about $3.7 million cumulatively to oppose Prop 200, Prop 201, Prop 202, Prop 209 and Prop 213. With its $3.7 million, the same group also supported Prop 207, Prop 210 and Prop 211.[9]
See also
External links
- Official Voter Guide to Proposition 202
- Full text of Proposition 202
- March 1996 California elections results (PDF)
References
- ↑ Summary of campaign expenditures for Proposition 202
- ↑ Campaign finance report for the "Alliance to Revitalize California"
- ↑ Campaign finance report for "Voter Revolt to Cut Insurance Rates"
- ↑ Campaign finance report for "Taxpayers Against Frivolous Lawsuits"
- ↑ Campaign finance report for "California Business PAC"
- ↑ Campaign finance report for the "Citizens Against Phony Initiatives"
- ↑ Campaign finance report for the "Citizens for Retirement Protection and Security"
- ↑ Campaign finance report for "Frivolous Lawsuit Reform"
- ↑ Campaign finance report for "Consumer Attorneys Issues PAC"
