M&M claims to ‘care about small cases’ and that it considers ‘all cases big’ etc. A friend told me that M&M declined to take on her personal injury case for which the insurance company had immediately offered $30k settlement. She said there was enough time remaining in the claimant period and that the case facts were indisputable; however, the potentially recoverable amount was perhaps insufficient to arouse engagement. So I went looking via AI; below is what came up.
I was unable to find a publicly disclosed “baseline recoverable amount” (i.e. a minimum damages threshold) that Morgan & Morgan requires for taking a personal-injury case.
What is clear is:
- Morgan & Morgan works on a contingency-fee basis: you don’t pay upfront; their fee is a portion of what’s recovered. (For The People)
- Their typical contingency fee range is approximately 33% to 40% of the settlement or judgment, depending on case complexity and whether it proceeds to trial. (Sup AI)
I found no credible, publicly disclosed source indicating that Morgan & Morgan imposes a fixed “minimum recoverable amount” (a threshold damages figure) below which they refuse to take a case.
Here’s what is public:
- Morgan & Morgan operates on a contingency-fee basis: no upfront fee, and they are paid only if there is a recovery. (For The People)
- Their usual contingent fee ranges are cited as about 33.33% for pre-litigation and up to 40% if the case goes to litigation/trial. (Sup AI)
- Some anecdotal commentary (e.g. in legal-community forums) suggests the same percentages and that the higher fee applies once a lawsuit is filed. (Reddit)
- I did not find any reputable law-firm disclosure, client FAQ, or court-filed engagement agreement stating a “we require at least $X recovery for us to accept the case” rule.
I checked their Verdicts Magazine PDF and associated materials but did not find a clear statement of a minimum recoverable threshold (i.e. “we won’t take a case unless the expected recovery is at least $X”) in those documents.
Here’s what I discovered:
- The 2020 Verdicts Magazine PDF is publicly available on their site. (For The People)
- Their “Verdicts Magazine” generally showcases high-value verdicts and settlements, comparing what insurance companies offered vs. what was obtained. (For The People)
- Their “Our Results” or “Verdicts & Settlements” pages list many large awards (often in the hundreds of thousands or millions) as examples of what they see as notable cases. (For The People)
- However, none of these public materials include a clause stating that they refuse to accept cases below a particular damages amount, or that there is a “baseline recoverable amount” required for engagement.
I was unable to locate any credible, verifiable source (in publicly available materials, court filings, bar records, law-firm disclosures, or internal memos) that confirms a fixed “minimum recoverable amount” that Morgan & Morgan requires before accepting a case.
Here’s a summary of what the evidence does (and does not) show, plus possible inferences and caveats:
What the public evidence does show
- No upfront fees; contingency model
Their published material explicitly states that they charge on a contingency basis (i.e. “you pay nothing unless we win”). (For The People)
They position their “Fee Is Free™” policy as allowing representation for “no case too small.” (For The People) - Typical fee percentages published
Their disclosed fee structure is commonly cited as 33⅓% for pre-litigation resolution, and 40% if the case goes to litigation/trial. (Sup AI)
(Note: third-party commentary also echoes this. (Focus Con Law)) - Marketing and “no case too small” claims
In their own content, Morgan & Morgan asserts that their contingency arrangement is designed so that “there is no case too small” for them to represent (i.e. implying they don’t categorically reject small-value cases) under the contingency model. (For The People) - No known internal policy visible in “Verdicts” or results listings
Their “Verdicts Magazine,” “Results,” and “Our Results” pages tend to highlight larger recoveries (hundreds of thousands and millions), but these are promotional examples, not statements of policy. I reviewed sample Verdicts PDFs and listings and did not find language stating a minimum threshold. (I did that earlier and confirmed this absence.)
Possible inferences & reasons for absence of a threshold
- Flexible acceptance criteria
Even if there is no formal published threshold, individual Morgan & Morgan offices or attorneys likely assess whether a case is financially viable (i.e. whether projected recovery justifies the costs, effort, risk). In practice, that acts as a de facto threshold, even if not codified. - Variation by jurisdiction / local office
Because laws, costs, and case values differ by state, one office might in practice decline very low-value cases even if the firm overall does not publish a firmwide minimum. - Marketing positioning
Their public “no case too small” messaging suggests that, at least as a marketing posture, they avoid ruling out small cases categorically. If they did have a hard threshold, publicizing it might deter potential clients. - Confidential internal policy
It’s possible that Morgan & Morgan has internal guidelines (for resource allocation, risk assessment, cost thresholds) that are not publicly disclosed. But I found no leaked or public document (e.g. via court exhibits, whistleblower disclosures, or regulatory filings) supporting such an internal fixed dollar threshold.