Is it permissible to assign the ALL the proceeds of an anticipated judgement to the lawyer(s)?
<p>In the case of an artisan group that only wants to redeem its good name, and to get back to work,
is is allowed to motivate attornies by assigning them all the proceeds of an anticipated judgement?</p>

<p>This is what the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_fee" rel="nofollow noreferrer">contingency fees</a> approach is, also known as &quot;no win no fee&quot;.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We were told by a lawyer in Tallahassee Florida that Bar ethics forbids an attorney to receive 100% the proceeds of a judgement.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That's correct. From the linked Wikipedia article:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Most jurisdictions require contingent fees to be &quot;reasonable,&quot; resulting in a typical contingent fee of 33-45% of any eventual recovery.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That said, the fact that the attorney did not mention that they could possibly receive 33-45% instead of 100% probably speaks of their lack of interest (which in turn could speak of the prospects of winning).</p>
<p>But it'll certainly worth trying more attorneys.</p>

contract-law intellectual-property ohio