Attorneys have condemned the fee cap as a Trojan horse meant to trick voters into wrecking the delicate math behind personal injury lawsuits. Currently, personal injury attorneys typically<\/a> take 33% to 40% of a client\u2019s payout. That is enough, they say, for them to earn a living and risk taking cases on a contingency fee basis \u2014 meaning, if they lose, they don\u2019t get paid.<\/p>\n Uber\u2019s proposal<\/a> would cap attorney fees for car crash cases at 25% and require extra costs \u2014 filing fees, depositions, experts \u2014 to be calculated before the fee split rather than coming out of the client\u2019s portion.<\/p>\n The two sides have conflicting views of who would be expected to pay for medical fees, which often drain a significant portion of an injured client\u2019s payout. Attorneys said in order to guarantee clients get 75% of the money, lawyers will have to foot the bill for these medical costs, opening the possibility they would walk away with nothing. Uber said the question of who covers medical costs is \u201cnot contemplated by the measure\u201d andit expects clients would pay. <\/p>\n The measure would tightly limit what medical expenses can be claimed and curb most damages to rates based on insurance. A doctor-led political action committee<\/a> opposing the measure has raised more than $4 million, according to campaign finance records, arguing it will prevent Californians from getting treatment.<\/p>\n Uber said in a statement that nothing in the measure prevents car accident victims from securing doctors and lawyers. Instead, the company said, the measure is aimed at tackling a perennial problem in California\u2019s legal system: attorneys pushing car crash victims into expensive surgeries in order to fatten their fees. The only Californians impacted, Uber claims, will be \u201cshady billboard lawyers whose business model relies on abusing auto accident victims for their own personal gain.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cCalifornians deserve a system that prioritizes victims over billboard lawyers,\u201d said Adam Blinick, Uber\u2019s head of public policy. \u201cCapping attorney fees, banning kickbacks, and ending inflated medical billing are common-sense reforms that will protect auto accident victims and lower costs, and we\u2019re confident voters will agree.\u201d<\/p>\n Uber has poured fuel on the fire with federal racketeering lawsuits targeting both Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA, and Jacob Emrani, two prominent personal injury law offices in Southern California. The lawsuits allege the attorneys had \u201cside agreements\u201d with certain doctors to inflate medical bills for unnecessary procedures to get a larger payout.<\/p>\n In an Instagram post<\/a>, DTLA called the lawsuit a \u201ccalculated attempt by a billion-dollar corporation\u201d to suppress legitimate claims. An attorney representing Emrani called it meritless and part of a campaign \u201cto shut the courthouse doors to victims injured by Uber drivers.\u201d<\/p>\n Gearing up for a fight, Consumer Attorneys of California, a powerful trial lawyer trade group, is pushing three ballot measures of its own, including one<\/a> seeking to increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger is sexually assaulted by a driver and the other<\/a> aiming to nullify the fee-capping measure if it passes. Billboards<\/a> have sprung up across Los Angeles reminding Californians that Uber is the subject of a string of recent New York Times investigations<\/a> into sexual assault by drivers. <\/p>\n The company said it has invested<\/a> billions in keeping riders safe and has \u201cdone more than any other company to confront\u201d sexual violence. <\/p>\n Consumer Watchdog, a consumer advocacy group that sponsored some of the billboards and receives funding from trial attorneys, put out a \u201cconsumer alert\u201d<\/a> branding the fee cap as a \u201clicense to kill\u201d measure, claiming it would ultimately pave the way for Uber to move forward with robotaxis without worrying about getting sued. Uber said this was \u201cflat-out untrue\u201d and the measure has nothing to do with autonomous vehicles.<\/p>\n The push by Uber comes at a tense point for California\u2019s legal bar. The Times reported this fall on private investors looking to bankroll<\/a> California sex abuse cases, and separate allegations of fraudulent lawsuits<\/a> and unethical conduct<\/a> by Downtown LA Law Group, a firm known for car crash lawsuits that played a prominent role in L.A. County\u2019s $4-billion sex abuse settlement<\/a>. <\/p>\n DTLA has denied all wrongdoing and said it operates \u201cwith unwavering integrity, prioritizing client welfare.\u201d<\/p>\n Some attorneys worry about how voters will perceive their industry when it\u2019s time to cast ballots.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ll tell you straight up, we could do a better job policing ourselves,\u201d said Rowley, who said he believed the State Bar had historically been weak on California lawyers. \u201cIt creates a situation where Uber can do what it\u2019s doing.\u201d<\/p>\n The exterior of Downtown LA Law Group at 601 N. Vermont Ave. in Los Angeles.<\/p>\n (Carlin Stiehl\/Los Angeles Times)<\/p>\n Calls for reform within California\u2019s legal community have gained momentum in recent months.<\/p>\n Joseph Nicchitta, the county\u2019s interim chief executive officer, called on the State Bar to implement \u201cbadly needed ethical reforms\u201d that would make big personal injury cases less profitable for lawyers. Attorney and business advocacy groups have made public pleas<\/a> to keep private equity out of the state\u2019s legal landscape, worrying it fuels frivolous lawsuits. Gov. Gavin Newsom has similarly expressed unease. <\/p>\n \u201cOur legal system is meant to provide justice, transparency, and accountability \u2014 not a business model that uses survivors of abuse or trauma as a revenue stream,\u201d said a spokesperson for the governor. \u201cCalifornia can \u2014 and must \u2014 hold two truths at the same time: standing unequivocally with survivors and victims, while also demanding integrity within the law firms and other businesses that work within our legal system.\u201d<\/p>\n Californians unhappy with problem law firms already have a way to ding them without the ballot measure, Uber\u2019s opponents argue. A new law<\/a> went into effect Jan. 1 giving private citizens the right to sue an attorney for unethical practices. Many such practices are already illegal but seldom prosecuted. That includes advertising containing false promises and using third parties to solicit clients.<\/p>\n The Times reported<\/a> this fall that nine plaintiffs represented by Downtown LA Law Group were paid by recruiters to sue the county for sex abuse in juvenile halls, four of whom said they were told to make up claims. The firm has denied paying anyone to file lawsuits. <\/p>\n \u201cThis is exactly why we wrote the bill,\u201d said Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana), a lawyer who oversees the Senate Judiciary Committee, in response to The Times Dec. 31 story<\/a> on the firm. \u201cI expect that someone will take it upon themselves to actually enforce that law.\u201d<\/p>\n ![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/1768650548_205_.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n