Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-120 (2026)
Attorneys' fees
✓ current as of May 2026
Compensation for reasonable attorneys' fees in the event an employment contract exists between the claimant and claimant's attorney on a contingent fee arrangement shall be awarded to the claimant's attorney in a health care liability action in an amount to be determined by the court on the basis of time and effort devoted to the litigation by the claimant's attorney, complexity of the claim and other pertinent matters in connection therewith, not to exceed thirty-three and one-third percent (331/3%) of all damages awarded to the claimant.
Acts 1975, ch. 299, § 19; 1976, ch. 759, § 19; T.C.A., § 23-3419; Acts 2012 , ch. 798, § 12.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1986–2013 · leading case: Newton v. Cox, 878 S.W.2d 105 (Tenn. 1994).
Newton v. Cox, 878 S.W.2d 105 (Tenn. 1994). “Cox did not advise Newton or his wife of the existence of Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-26-120, which provides as follows: Compensation for reasonable attorneys’ fees in the event an employment contract exists between the claimant and his attorney on a contingent fee arrangement shall be…”
Wright Ex Rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166 (Tenn. 2011). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-26-120. In determining the fee, the court considers the time and effort the attorney devoted to the litigation, the complexity of the claim, "and other pertinent matters.”
Guess v. Maury, 726 S.W.2d 906 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). “The following day, plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-26-120. The motion was subsequently denied by the trial court.”
Shoughrue v. St. Mary's Med. Ctr., Inc., 152 S.W.3d 577 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 29-26-120 provides as follows: Compensation for reasonable attorneys’ fees in the event an employment contract exists between the claimant and claimant’s attorney on a contingent fee arrangement shall be awarded to the claimant’s attorney in a malpractice action in an amount…”
Pratt v. Smart Corp., 968 S.W.2d 868 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “In Newton , the Supreme Court found that a 50% contingency fee agreement between an attorney and client in a medical malpractice case was in *871 violation of T.C.A. § 29-26-120, which sets the maximum contingency fee arrangement in such cases at one-third.”
Kelvin Shoughrue v. St. Mary's Med. Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-120 (1980).” Tenn.”
In re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 842 F. Supp. 2d 346 (D. Me. 2012). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-26-120 (2000). Wisconsin allows 33 1/3% of the first $1,000,000 (or 25% of the first $1,000,000 if liability is stipulated within 180 days) and 25% of any amount in excess of $1,000,000.”
William P. Newton v. James S. Cox (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “Initially, the trial court ruled that section 29-26-120 was unconstitutional on various grounds and, thus, refused to invalidate the fee contract.”
Charles Webb & Evangeline Webb, Individually & as Husband & Wife v. Charles Roberson, M.D. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). “1994), our Supreme Court rejected an equal protection challenge to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-120, which establishes a contingency fee cap for attorneys representing medical malpractice claimants.”
Christy Leann Smith v. Leona M. Pratt, of The Est. of Stephen M. Pratt, M.D., & HCA Health Servs. of Tennessee, Inc. d/b/a Centennial Med. Ctr. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “6 “It is conceivable that the General Assembly concluded that the contingency fee cap of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-120 would further the purposes of the Medical Malpractice Act by reducing malpractice insurance costs and, therefore, reduce the cost of health care to the public.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.