Can an attorney who has a contingent fee agreement assume not receiving their fees if there is no recovery?

The principle that an attorney who has a contingent fee agreement assumes the risk of not receiving a fee if there is no recovery is supported by California law that was in effect when the federal action was filed in 1996. For example, according to the court in Bandy v. Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. Dist. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 230, a contingent fee contract gives an attorney an equitable interest in any recovery his or her client receives in the contract amount, but a cause of action for the attorney to enforce the lien does not accrue until the contingency occurs (e.g., until the client obtains a recovery). (Id. at pp. 234-235.) According to Siciliano v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 745, if the contingent fee attorney is discharged prior to the recovery, the attorney can recover the reasonable value of his or her services provided prior to discharge, but again, the attorney's cause of action does not accrue until the contingency occurs. (Id. at pp. 752, 757.) Thus, the attorney assumes the risk of obtaining no payment.