Daily Journal | May 20, 2026

A proposed California ballot initiative backed by Uber is drawing serious concern from trial lawyers, consumer advocates, and access-to-justice organizations.

In a recent Daily Journal column, Trial Lawyers for Justice founder Nicholas Rowley and attorney Arash Homampour warned that Initiative 25-0022A1 could dramatically weaken California’s contingency fee system and make it harder for injured people to find lawyers willing to take complex, high-risk cases. The article argues that the measure would benefit corporate defendants and insurers while limiting the ability of injured Californians to pursue full accountability after serious vehicle-related injuries.

The California Attorney General’s official title and summary states that the proposed constitutional amendment would limit attorney fees in automobile accident cases so victims retain at least 75% of their monetary recovery, while also noting that it does not restrict fee arrangements for defendants’ attorneys. The summary also states that the measure would increase the burden of proof and limit recovery for certain medical expenses, and could increase Medi-Cal costs by millions to tens of millions of dollars annually.

Why This Matters

The contingency fee system allows people who cannot afford hourly legal fees to pursue justice against powerful corporations, insurance companies, and institutions.

Without contingency fees, many injured people would be priced out of the courthouse before their case even begins. Complex injury cases often require years of work, expert witnesses, medical analysis, depositions, trial preparation, and substantial litigation costs. Lawyers who take those cases on contingency assume the risk of receiving nothing if the case is unsuccessful.

That risk-based model is what gives ordinary people access to legal representation when they are up against billion-dollar companies and insurance defense teams.

What Is at Stake

If Initiative 25-0022A1 passes, the legal playing field could become even more unequal.

According to the Attorney General’s summary, the measure would limit plaintiffs’ contingency fee arrangements, but would not place similar limits on what defendants may pay their attorneys. That means corporations and insurance companies could continue spending heavily to fight claims, while injured people may face new restrictions on the representation available to them.

For people with catastrophic injuries, including traumatic brain injuries, spinal injuries, amputations, paralysis, severe disfigurement, or lifelong medical needs, these cases are often the hardest and most expensive to pursue. If the financial risk becomes too high and the ability to recover fees is constitutionally restricted, fewer lawyers may be able to take those cases.

TL4J’s Position

Trial Lawyers for Justice believes access to the courts should not depend on a person’s bank account.

The civil justice system exists so ordinary people can hold wrongdoers accountable, including corporations with vast financial resources. When that system is weakened, the burden does not disappear. It shifts to families, public hospitals, safety-net systems, and taxpayers.

The fight over Initiative 25-0022A1 is not just about attorney fees. It is about whether injured people can still find strong legal representation when they need it most.

Media Coverage

Daily Journal: “Protect access to justice and be munificent”
The column by Arash Homampour and Nicholas Rowley argues that Uber’s proposed initiative would undermine California’s contingency fee system and restrict access to justice for injured victims. TL4J’s takeaway: the plaintiffs’ bar must treat this as a major access-to-justice fight, not a narrow fee dispute.

California Attorney General: Official Title and Summary for Initiative 25-0022A1
The official summary states that the measure would limit the fees plaintiffs’ attorneys may receive in automobile accident cases, increase the burden of proof, and limit recovery for certain medical expenses, and that it does not restrict defense attorney fee arrangements. TL4J’s takeaway: the official summary confirms the imbalance at the center of the debate.

Current Status

Initiative 25-0022A1 has received an official title and summary from the California Attorney General. TL4J will continue to monitor developments and share updates on efforts to protect access to justice for injured Californians.

Read the Daily Journal Coverage

Courthouse News Service | Hillel Aron | April 23, 2026

Summary

A Los Angeles jury is hearing testimony in a wrongful death case against the LAPD after a 14-year-old girl was fatally shot inside a retail store. Represented by Nick Rowley, the family argues the shooting was preventable and reflects critical failures in police decision-making and training.

What Happened

In December 2021, LAPD officers responded to reports of an assault inside a Burlington store. During the encounter, an officer fired a department-issued rifle at a suspect believed to be armed.

The round struck the suspect but continued through a wall into a dressing room, where 14-year-old Valentina Orellana-Peralta was hiding with her mother. She was killed at the scene.

At trial, the officer testified that he believed the suspect posed an immediate threat and that he feared the individual was armed.

The Case

The family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, alleging:

• Negligent use of deadly force
• Failure to assess the environment before firing
• Inadequate training and tactical decision-making

Nick Rowley, representing the family, is advancing the argument that the shooting was not an unavoidable tragedy, but a preventable failure rooted in poor judgment under pressure.

The Result

• Trial is currently underway in Los Angeles
• No final verdict has been issued at this stage

Why It Matters

• Raises questions about the use of force in confined, civilian-heavy environments
• Highlights the obligation to identify what lies beyond a target before firing
• Tests the extent of civil liability for tactical police decisions
• Reinforces the role of the courts in holding public agencies accountable

TL4J Statement

“This case is about responsibility. When decisions made in seconds carry irreversible consequences, accountability cannot be optional. The legal system exists to examine those decisions and determine whether they were justified or preventable.”

Current Status

The case remains in trial, with testimony focused on the officer’s decision-making, perceived threat level, and adherence to departmental training standards.

Media Coverage

• Courthouse News Service — focused on officer testimony and courtroom developments
• Associated Press — broader context on the civil case and claims against LAPD

Disclaimer

This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

CVN | January 20, 2026

Breaking Success: Nick Rowley’s Record Verdict Named Among 2025’s Most Impressive

Nick Rowley’s plaintiff victory was recognized by Courtroom View Network as one of the Top 10 Most Impressive Plaintiff Verdicts of 2025, placing it among the most significant civil trial outcomes nationwide this year. The distinction reflects not only the size and impact of the verdict, but also the strategic execution and courtroom advocacy behind it.

According to CVN’s annual rankings, the case stood out for its compelling presentation, trial strategy, and meaningful outcome for the injured plaintiff. The verdict reinforced Rowley’s reputation as a trial lawyer willing to take complex, high-stakes cases to a jury and secure results that resonate beyond the individual matter.

CVN’s Top 10 list evaluates plaintiff verdicts across jurisdictions, highlighting cases that demonstrate exceptional litigation performance and substantial impact. Inclusion in this list underscores the significance of the result and its place among the most notable plaintiff wins of 2025.

For trial lawyers and clients alike, the recognition reflects a continued commitment to aggressive advocacy, careful case preparation, and jury-focused storytelling. This latest distinction adds to a history of high-profile verdicts achieved in complex civil litigation.

Read the entire article at CVN.

Calmatters | February 24, 2026

A Santa Barbara woman was killed by an Uber Eats driver who was speeding 120 miles per hour while intoxicated, according to the family’s lawsuit. The driver already had a criminal history and was on probation for a second DUI. But he was good enough for Uber.

Uber’s inadequate background check system has resulted in other lawsuits and led to several New York Times stories that portrayed Uber as cheap and negligent when it comes to background checks and safety, for allowing violent convicts to drive and ignoring customer complaints.

Instead of making safety improvements, Uber is making a political investment in the form of a ballot measure in California.

Uber’s initiative would protect negligent drivers in every type of motor vehicle accident case, which would benefit corporations and insurance companies to the tune of billions of dollars each year.

The proposed law also would limit victims’ medical recovery and their freedom to contract with an attorney who’ll stand up against the mega-billion-dollar corporation and its insurance companies.

Uber’s propaganda claims its initiative will protect people from “billboard lawyers,” but that’s far from the truth. Uber’s real goal is getting richer by dodging accountability and driving a wedge between victims and lawyers.

Here’s how Uber’s “evil genius plan” works. 

Most injury victims and families cannot afford a lawyer who bills by the hour. Contingency fee lawyers only get paid if they win and often invest years of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money into a case. 

Uber’s proposed law says victims must keep 75% of the “total recovery,” which sounds like 25% goes to pay their attorneys, but that’s not true. 

When accident victims need treatment and rehabilitation, providers treat them with the understanding they will be paid when the case is over, or “on a lien.” These medical bills are not recoverable costs under the initiative and would come out of the 25% that would fund the attorneys’ costs. 

That means in many serious injury cases, the more lawyers do to help clients get care, the less they’ll get paid. A $1 million serious injury settlement, for instance, could result in medical liens and bills exceeding $250,000, and the lawyers would get nothing.  

Uber’s law also makes it nearly impossible to find reputable doctors to provide treatment on a lien.

Creating even higher stakes, Uber has announced it would redeploy its self-driving cars and robotaxis on California roads in late 2026, after the election.  

In Arizona in 2018, an Uber robotaxi was the first to kill a pedestrian. The National Transportation Safety Board report said Uber had an “inadequate safety culture,” and noted the Uber vehicle’s system detected the pedestrian six seconds before impact but didn’t hit the brakes. The company had decreased the number of expensive sensors on the car before the accident.

“Fully autonomous vehicles would have to be driven hundreds of millions of miles and sometimes billions of miles to demonstrate their safety in terms of fatalities and injuries,” a report from RAND Corporation has said. Uber’s partner, Nuro, had only logged 210,540 miles in California, according to a 2024 DMV report. 

To be clear, Uber’s political strategy has nothing to do with helping people and everything to do with protecting itself and getting richer, just as it launches dangerous technology on California roads.   

Uber and its insurers could hire lawyers without limit and face no penalty for legal delays or frivolous defenses. 

Uber’s proposed law would give the corporation a license to kill, by making it next to impossible for most injury victims to get legal representation to match Uber’s lawyers — blocking fair access to our civil justice system when a person is hurt, maimed, or killed.

Read the entire article at Cal Matters.

Nick Rowley has been named to Capitol Weekly’s Top 100, a recognition that reflects not just professional success, but lasting impact on California law and public policy.

The annual Top 100 list highlights individuals who shape the state’s political and policy landscape in meaningful ways. Rowley’s inclusion underscores a career defined by strategic litigation, accountability, and a willingness to challenge entrenched systems when the stakes are high.

One of the most significant factors behind this recognition was Rowley’s role in the long-running fight to reform the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). For decades, MICRA imposed a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases, a limit that failed to reflect the true cost of catastrophic injuries suffered by patients and families.

While previous reform efforts repeatedly stalled, this time was different. Rowley helped drive a ballot initiative that fundamentally changed the negotiating dynamics. By creating real electoral pressure, the issue moved from political deadlock to actionable compromise. The result was a modernized framework that raised outdated caps and acknowledged the realities of medical harm in today’s economy.

What makes this outcome notable is not just the policy change itself, but how it was achieved. The strategy blended courtroom advocacy with public accountability, demonstrating how trial lawyers can influence systems far beyond individual cases. It was a reminder that meaningful reform often requires both legal precision and the courage to apply pressure where it counts.

For Trial Lawyers for Justice, this recognition reinforces a core principle: impact litigation is about more than verdicts. It is about restoring balance when laws no longer serve the people they were meant to protect. The MICRA reform effort stands as a clear example of how persistence, preparation, and principled advocacy can reshape long-standing policy.

Why This Matters

Reforming outdated damage caps directly affects access to justice for patients harmed by medical negligence. Raising those limits restores fairness, recognizes real human costs, and ensures accountability keeps pace with modern realities.

Source Note

This recognition was originally reported by Capitol Weekly.