I strongly disagree with this post. First of all, California law requires that a client must ultimately be responsible for costs, even if advanced by the attorney. Second, I am never adverse to reducing my fee when and if appropriate given the amount of work and depending on the outcome. My experience, in California, is that when lawyer percipitously drops his fee in order to corral clients, the clients get exactly what they paid for----reduced attention and comensurate results. A client may actually "net" more if he/she has a fantastic lawyer who charges a higher contingency. For example, a 40% reduction from $100k, yields a higher "net" than a 25% reduction from a $50k award. I am certain that you are a very capable attorney and your fee structure is a relative bargain in Philadelphia. However, recommending that California insureds only hire a "discount" lawyer is dangerous advice, even if you personally are a great lawyer.
It's not a discount. Anything above this is highway robbery.