Here (behind paywall). it would be a ballot referendum. The argument in favor of the referendum is that it would protect clients from lawyers charging excessive fees. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
Many legal experts said a ceiling of 20 percent would make it financially difficult for many lawyers to take on complex cases against deep-pocketed companies — and could help shield Uber from additional lawsuits from people who blamed the company for misconduct by its drivers.
“This would basically be slamming the door of the courthouse on individuals who were harmed,” said Herbert M. Kritzer, a law professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota, who has studied contingency fees.
Three people familiar with Uber’s legal strategy said the company hoped the initiative would insulate Uber from what could be a flood of litigation related to its drivers’ misconduct. One of those people said the company was also trying to make it harder for lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits against drivers for traffic accidents.
* * *
Uber is joining a long-running effort by tobacco, drug and other giant companies to vilify plaintiffs’ lawyers as unscrupulous, greedy “ambulance chasers,” said Michael McCann, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Washington and an author of “Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis.”
