Skip to content

General information only — not legal advice. Published by Edward & Amaury Solicitors, solicitors regulated by the SRA (no. 800525). How that affects what you read.

No Win No Fee

Corrections

Every substantive correction we make to a legal statement on this site is logged here, with the date, what was wrong, what the page says now, and how the error got through. Fee rules change, and a page that is right today can be wrong in eighteen months.

Found something wrong? Email the page URL and the problem to editorial@no-win-no-fee.com. A pointer to the statute, rule or judgment helps most.

  1. California — Contingency Fee Rules

    United States · California · 2 August 2026
    What was wrong
    The page set out the medical malpractice attorney fee limits as a sliding scale of 40% of the first $50,000, 33⅓% of the next $50,000, 25% of the next $500,000 and 15% above $600,000. That scale was repealed with effect from 1 January 2023. The page also cited AB 35 by name while describing the position that AB 35 replaced.
    What it says now
    Business & Professions Code § 6146, as amended by AB 35 (Stats. 2022, ch. 17), limits the fee to 25% of the recovery if the claim settles before a civil complaint or demand for arbitration is filed, and 33% after that point, with a court able to allow more on a showing of good cause.
    How it happened
    The statute was cited by section number but never linked, and the page carried no record of when it was last checked against the current text. Nothing in the process would have caught the 2023 amendment.

  2. Florida — Contingency Fee Rules

    United States · Florida · 2 August 2026
    What was wrong
    The page listed as a key fact that non-economic damages in negligence claims are "capped at $500,000 ($1M catastrophic)". Florida has no such cap.
    What it says now
    Florida has no enforceable cap on non-economic damages in negligence. The caps in section 766.118 were held unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court — in wrongful death claims in Estate of McCall v. United States (2014) and in personal injury claims in North Broward Hospital District v. Kalitan (2017). HB 837 (2023) made substantial tort changes but did not reinstate them.
    How it happened
    The figures appear to have come from the text of section 766.118 without checking whether it remained enforceable. A statute can stay on the books after being struck down, which is why case law has to be checked alongside it.

  3. UK success fee cap (multiple pages)

    England & Wales · 2 August 2026
    What was wrong
    Several pages described the personal injury success fee as "capped at 25% of the damages awarded for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity", and the UK hub described it more loosely still as "25% of damages". Both understated or overstated the base the cap is calculated on, and the pages conflated the 25% limit on deductions from damages with the separate 100% limit on the uplift to base costs.
    What it says now
    Article 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013 caps the success fee at 100% of the solicitor's base costs. Article 5 separately caps what may be taken from damages in a personal injury claim at 25% of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity plus damages for past pecuniary loss — but not future pecuniary loss — after deducting sums recoverable by the Compensation Recovery Unit, and applies to proceedings at first instance.
    How it happened
    The two caps in the same statutory instrument do different things and are widely conflated online, including in some search engines' own generated answers. We repeated the common version instead of reading article 5.

  4. QOCS and adverse costs (multiple pages)

    England & Wales · 2 August 2026
    What was wrong
    The UK hub stated flatly that "QOCS protects you from paying the defendant's costs if you lose", with no exceptions. Separately, the US hub said "If you lose, you owe no attorney fees" without noting that a losing plaintiff may be ordered to pay the defendant's taxable costs.
    What it says now
    QOCS is qualified, not absolute: protection can be lost through fundamental dishonesty or strike-out, it does not apply to non-personal-injury claims, and since 6 April 2023 CPR 44.14 permits enforcement against costs orders and agreements to pay made in the claimant's favour. On the US side, the pages now state that there is no US equivalent of QOCS and that costs may be awarded against a losing plaintiff.
    How it happened
    Both sentences were true as far as they went and were written as reassurance. The exception is the part a reader most needs, and omitting it is how a correct sentence becomes a misleading one.

  5. Site-wide — UK coverage and publisher identity

    Site-wide · 2 August 2026
    What was wrong
    The homepage advertised coverage "across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland" while no Scottish or Northern Irish content existed. The site also described itself as an independent resource that "is not a law firm", listed four editorial roles with regulated credentials but no names, and stated that every guide cites statutes when almost none linked to one.
    What it says now
    The four-nation claim has been removed until that content exists. The publisher is named on every page, with its company number and SRA number linked to the public registers, and its interest in the subject matter is disclosed. Credentials are attached to named, checkable organisations or stated as an open gap. Every guide carries its sources and the date they were checked.
    How it happened
    The site described the editorial process it intended to have rather than the one it had.

  6. Florida — Contingency Fee Rules & Statute of Limitations

    United States · Florida · 17 September 2026
    What was wrong
    The statute of limitations table cited Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3) for negligence, § 95.11(4)(b) for medical malpractice and § 95.11(4)(d) for wrongful death. Florida renumbered § 95.11 after the 2023 tort-reform act (HB 837); those claim types now sit under subsection (5), not (3) or (4). The product liability row also gave the wrong limitations period — 2 years instead of 4 — and cited only the repose statute, not the limitations statute itself. The page had no row for claims against a government entity at all, unlike the equivalent California, Texas and New York pages.
    What it says now
    Negligence, medical malpractice and wrongful death now cite § 95.11(5)(a), (5)(c) and (5)(e) respectively. Product liability correctly states a 4-year limitations period under § 95.11(3)(d) alongside the 12-year repose period under § 95.031(2). A new row covers claims against a Florida public entity: a 3-year written notice requirement, then a mandatory 180-day wait before suit, under § 768.28.
    How it happened
    The subsection numbers were correct when first written but were never re-checked against the current statute text after the renumbering. Caught during research for a new statute-of-limitations guide, by fetching the current statute directly rather than trusting the existing citation.

See also: how we research these guides · who writes and checks this site · complaints handling procedure

Frequently Asked Questions

Why publish a corrections page at all?

Because fee rules change and legal content goes stale silently. A publisher that never shows a correction is either not re-checking its pages or not telling you when it finds something. Publishing the fix, the date and how it happened is the only way to make an accuracy claim you can test.

How do I report an error?

Email the page URL and what you think is wrong to editorial@no-win-no-fee.com. If you can point to the statute, rule or judgment, that speeds things up considerably. We check reports against the primary source and correct the page if it is wrong.