A potential fee agreement is a payment agreement that allows a claimant seeking recourse to obtain legal representation, even if, at the beginning of the case, he or she has no money to pay for a lawyer. A client does not have to pay a fee in advance and agrees to pay a lawyer a percentage of the client`s sentence if he wins the case. The agreement on the possible fee agreement determines the circumstances of the payment and the amount due to a lawyer. The rules applicable to lawyers in your country often determine when contingency fees are reasonable. Other countries use a mobile pricing structure. For example, Connecticut uses a mobile pricing structure, but it can be abandoned in complex cases with a cap of 33.33%.  California allows contingency charges up to 40% of the first $50,000 in damage recovered, 33.33% of the $50,000, 25% of the $500,000 and 15% of the recovery of more than $500,000. Initially, the question of whether the DBA regulations preclude such agreements was not without controversy. Some have suggested that it might be possible to have a separate agreement outside the DBA, providing for a reduced hourly rate at the same time as a “No Win No Fee” DBA. We wrote to the Department of Justice to highlight the confusion caused by the regulations in their original form and to ask whether, for political reasons, the regulations were intended to partially exclude CSDs. In response, the MoJ stated that one of the conditions for the enforceability of a DBA was that “payment should be determined by reference to the amount of financial benefit received” and that it will ultimately be for the court to decide whether an agreement is applicable in light of the law. Contingency fees are not applicable under Russian law.
They are not defined by law, but the Council of Justice has decided that charges for services provided cannot be subordinated to decisions that may be made in the future by the government or the courts, including the amount of compensation awarded following a lawsuit.  For this reason, the European Court of Human Rights does not award plaintiffs in legal fees against Russia for legal fees incurred by plaintiffs under a possible agreement on fees under Russian law.  Contingency charges have been permitted in South Africa since 1997, as discussed by K.G. Druker in The law of contingency fees in South Africa.  By way of illustration, suppose a plaintiff has agreed with his lawyer on a 30% success fee and receives damages of one million pounds. . . .