Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 655.013 (2026)
Attorney fees
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
655.013(1)(1) With respect to any act of malpractice after July 24, 1975, for which a contingency fee arrangement has been entered into before June 14, 1986, the compensation determined on a contingency basis and payable to all attorneys acting for one or more plaintiffs or claimants is subject to the following unless a new contingency fee arrangement is entered into that complies with subs. (1m) and (1t):
655.013(1)(a)(a) The determination shall not reflect amounts previously paid for medical expenses by the health care provider or the provider’s insurer.
655.013(1)(b)(b) The determination shall not reflect payments for future medical expense in excess of $25,000.
655.013(1m)(1m) Except as provided in sub. (1t), with respect to any act of malpractice for which a contingency fee arrangement is entered into on and after June 14, 1986, in addition to compensation for the reasonable costs of prosecution of the claim, the compensation determined on a contingency basis and payable to all attorneys acting for one or more plaintiffs or claimants is subject to the following limitations:
655.013(1m)(b)(b) Twenty-five percent of the first $1,000,000 recovered if liability is stipulated within 180 days after the date of filing of the original complaint and not later than 60 days before the first day of trial.
655.013(1t)(1t) A court may approve attorney fees in excess of the limitations under sub. (1m) upon a showing of exceptional circumstances, including an appeal.
655.013(2)(2) An attorney shall offer to charge any client in a malpractice proceeding or action on a per diem or per hour basis. Any such agreement shall be made at the time of the employment of the attorney. An attorney’s fee on a per diem or per hour basis is not subject to the limitations under sub. (1) or (1m).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2006–2012 · leading case: In Re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 424 F. Supp. 2d 488 (E.D.N.Y 2006).
In Re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 424 F. Supp. 2d 488 (E.D.N.Y 2006). “221 ; Wis. Stat. § 655.013 (1986). See generally Lester Brickman, The Market for Contingent Fee-Financed Tort Litigation: Is It Price Competitive?, 25 Cardozo L.”
In re New Motor Vehs. Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 842 F. Supp. 2d 346 (D. Me. 2012). “Wis. Stat. Ann. § 655.013 (West 2004). The plaintiffs suggest that if the statutory medical malpractice fee caps in Maine or California were accepted as "market rates” but the recovery amounts scaled appropriately, they would translate to a blended contingent fee of 37.”
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.