US vs UK No Win No Fee Legal Costs
US and UK outcome-based cases allocate money differently. A US attorney commonly takes a percentage and separately deducts expenses and liens. An England-and-Wales solicitor may recover base costs from the opponent while deducting a success fee and possibly an ATE premium from damages. Neither model should be compared using percentage alone.
What the headline percentage misses
The useful comparison is net recovery: the amount left after the professional fee, case expenses, medical or statutory liens, benefit recovery, insurance and any tax consequences.
- Gross versus net percentage calculation
- Expense reimbursement
- Lien or benefit repayment
- Insurance premium
- Adverse-cost exposure
US cost stack
The attorney's percentage may be calculated before or after expenses. Medical liens, Medicare or Medicaid interests and case-specific taxation can materially change the client's net recovery. State law and the written agreement control.
England and Wales cost stack
Base costs, the success fee, disbursements, ATE insurance and QOCS must be considered separately. A Part 36 offer may also alter cost consequences even where the claimant ultimately recovers damages.
A fair comparison method
Ask each provider for a written worked example at three recovery levels and at three procedural stages. The example should state every assumption and identify which amount is paid by the opponent and which comes from the client's damages.
Frequently Asked Questions
Sources for this page
Every rule stated above is based on the primary sources below. Each link goes to the legislation, court rule or regulator itself so you can check it. Last verified 2 August 2026.
- ABA Model Rule 1.5 (Fees)
Model, not law. Each state adopts its own version. Rule 1.5(d) bars contingency fees in most domestic relations matters and in criminal defence.
- Cornell LII — contingency fee
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) (costs to the prevailing party)
A losing plaintiff may be ordered to pay the defendant's taxable costs. There is no US equivalent of QOCS.
- Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.58 (conditional fee agreements)
The provision that makes CFAs lawful and enforceable. CFAs derive from this section, not from LASPO.
- Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, arts. 4–5 · in force from 1 April 2013
Art. 4 caps the success fee at 100% of base costs. Art. 5 caps what may be taken from damages in personal injury at 25% of PSLA plus past pecuniary loss, net of CRU, at first instance.
- Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, ss.44–46 · in force from 1 April 2013
Ended recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums from the losing party. Did not create or regulate CFAs.
- Civil Procedure Rules, Part 44 (incl. rr.44.13–44.17, QOCS)
Qualified one-way costs shifting and its exceptions. Rule 44.14 was amended with effect from 6 April 2023.
Who wrote and checked this page
- Written and published by
- Edward & Amaury Solicitors (Edward & Amaury Ltd, company no. 12195443), regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under no. 800525.
- Legal review
- This page has not yet been through independent legal review. It is written from the primary sources listed below, which you can check directly.
- Review dates
- Last reviewed 2 August 2026. Next review due 2 February 2027.
Fee rules change. California’s medical malpractice fee limits changed on 1 January 2023, and the QOCS rules in England and Wales changed on 6 April 2023. If you spot something out of date, tell us — we publish corrections.