Will I Still Be Able to Hire a Personal Injury Lawyer in California If Initiative 25-0022 Passes?

It is the question we hear most when clients learn about the Uber-backed California ballot initiative: if this measure passes, will I still be able to hire a personal injury lawyer after a crash?

The honest answer is: yes, but with caveats. Personal injury law in California is not going away. The State Bar is not being abolished. Lawyers will still take strong cases. What changes — and the change matters — is the math at the margins, and the kinds of cases that will and will not pencil out under a constitutional 25% fee cap.

This post walks through that practical reality: who would still get representation, who might not, and what to do if you are injured before the November 2026 election or shortly after it.

Does Initiative 25-0022 ban personal injury lawyers?

No. Initiative 25-0022 does not abolish personal injury law, the contingency fee, or the right to hire a lawyer.

What the measure does is amend the California Constitution to require that, in motor-vehicle accident cases, the injured client retains at least 75% of the monetary recovery after costs. That translates to a roughly 25% net cap on plaintiffs' attorney fees in auto-accident cases — and only in auto-accident cases. Premises liability cases, dog bites, dangerous-sidewalk falls, medical malpractice, and other personal injury matters are not directly limited by the 25% cap, although the medical-damages provisions can affect them indirectly when motor-vehicle injuries are involved.

The right to hire counsel and the right to bring a claim survive. The economics of a specific category of cases is what shifts.

What kinds of car accident cases will lawyers still take?

Clear-liability, well-documented motor-vehicle cases with serious injuries will still be taken. Examples include rear-end collisions caused by a distracted commercial driver with adequate insurance, drunk-driving crashes with a clear police report and surviving witnesses, and rideshare or delivery-vehicle crashes where the at-fault party is identifiable and insured.

In those cases, the firm's exposure is manageable. Costs are predictable. The recovery is reasonably foreseeable. A 25% net cap is workable, even if margins are thinner than today.

Firms with internal capacity to handle paperwork-heavy cases efficiently — strong staffing, established medical-record workflows, and lower per-case overhead — will be best positioned to keep saying yes.

Which cases would become harder to find a lawyer for?

The cases at risk are the ones that already strain a contingency-fee firm's economics. Those tend to share three traits: contested liability, expensive proof, and limited insurance coverage.

Examples that would feel the pressure first:

• Soft-tissue injury cases with disputed causation, where a defense biomechanics expert is likely.
• Multi-vehicle freeway crashes with shared fault among several drivers and contested deposition testimony.
• Cases involving uninsured or underinsured motorists where recovery is capped by the policy limits.
• Traumatic brain injury and chronic-pain cases that require neurology, neuropsychology, and life-care planning experts.
• Pedestrian and cyclist cases where the defense disputes visibility, lighting, or right-of-way.

In each of those categories, the cost to prove the case can be significant relative to the realistic recovery. Under a 25% net cap with no corresponding cap on the defendants' side, more of those marginal cases will be declined — even when they are legitimate.

What about catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases?

Catastrophic cases are not the first to be declined, but they do become more concentrated.

A wrongful death claim arising from a fatal trucking crash will still attract qualified counsel. So will a spinal-cord injury case with permanent paralysis. The recoveries in those cases are large enough to support significant case costs even at a 25% net fee.

What changes is the depth of the bench. Smaller and mid-sized firms may decline complex catastrophic cases that they would have taken today, simply because the firm cannot afford the risk if liability is hard-fought. A handful of larger plaintiffs' firms would absorb more of those cases. For injured Californians, that means fewer choices in counsel, potentially longer waits, and longer drives to find a firm willing to take a case.

Will it be harder to find a lawyer who takes lien cases or treats uninsured patients?

Probably, yes — and this is one of the most overlooked effects of the measure.

Many California crash victims do not have health insurance, or their plan refuses to pay for accident-related care, or they cannot afford specialist co-pays. Today, doctors and physical therapists sometimes treat those patients on a lien, agreeing to wait for payment until the case resolves.

Initiative 25-0022 raises the burden of proof for medical-lien claims and limits what can be recovered for some medical expenses. The Legislative Analyst projects that medical-lien recovery would be reduced. If providers see less payoff and more risk, fewer providers will offer lien-based treatment. Fewer plaintiff firms will accept cases that depend on lien-based care.

The practical result is fewer treatment options for uninsured crash victims, which makes it harder for an attorney to take that victim's case at all.

What should I do if I am injured before the November 2026 election?

Your rights are governed by current California law, not by Initiative 25-0022, until and unless the measure passes and takes effect.

Three practical steps:

• Get medical care promptly and document it. Future medical-damages rules under the proposed measure are stricter, so a clear, contemporaneous record of treatment matters.
• Preserve evidence quickly. Vehicle damage, dashcam footage, freeway-camera video, and rideshare app data are time-sensitive.
• Speak with a personal injury lawyer sooner rather than later. Statutes of limitation continue to run, and pre-litigation negotiations are easier when evidence is fresh.

If your case is filed before the effective date of any constitutional amendment, current law continues to govern your fee agreement and your damages.

What should I do if I am injured after Initiative 25-0022 passes?

First, do not assume that no lawyer will take your case. Strong, well-documented motor-vehicle cases will still be taken — and the firms taking them will be the ones with the operational discipline to make a 25% net fee viable.

Second, expect a more rigorous intake. Firms may ask earlier and more pointed questions about insurance coverage, witness availability, available video evidence, prior medical history, and treatment access. That is not gatekeeping for its own sake; it is honest case selection.

Third, ask the firm directly about their experience with the post-25-0022 framework: how they handle medical-damages caps, lien-based treatment, and the constitutional 75/25 split. A firm that cannot answer those questions may not be the right fit.

We address the broader picture in our pillar post on Uber's California ballot initiative and in our companion piece explaining the proposed 25% contingency fee cap.

The bottom line

If Initiative 25-0022 passes, you will still be able to hire a personal injury lawyer in California after a car crash. You will still have the right to bring a claim. The Bar will still exist.

What will change is which cases get accepted, how quickly, and by which firms. Strong cases will continue to find counsel. Marginal cases — the ones that already strain plaintiff economics — will get harder to place. That is not the picture the proponents are advertising, and it is the part Californians need to weigh before they sign or vote.

Disclaimer: This post is for general information only and is not legal advice. The proposed measure is Initiative 25-0022A1; voters should review the official Secretary of State, Attorney General, and campaign finance materials before signing any petition or voting.