In the case of Blanchard v. Bergeron et al., 1988, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a contingency fee agreement between an attorney and client does not limit or cap the amount of fees awarded under Section 1988 (a federal statute that allows courts to award reasonable attorney's fees to prevailing parties in civil rights cases). The plaintiff, Blanchard, had been injured during his arrest by Louisiana police officers and sued for damages under Section 1983. He entered into a contingency fee agreement with his lawyer which stated he would pay one-third of any recovery as legal fees. After winning the lawsuit, however, his lawyer sought additional compensation through Section 1988. The District Court approved this request but was reversed by the Fifth Circuit on appeal because they believed it violated their pre-existing contract terms. However, upon reaching Supreme Court level review it was decided that such agreements do not impose an automatic ceiling on an award of attorney's fees.

In the dissenting opinion for Blanchard v. Bergeron et al., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow attorneys' fees beyond a contingency fee agreement was incorrect. He believed that this ruling would lead to excessive and unnecessary litigation over fees, which could potentially harm clients who may be left with little or no recovery after paying their lawyers. Furthermore, he contended that it undermines the predictability of legal costs and disrupts contractual relationships between attorneys and clients by allowing courts to override agreed-upon fee arrangements. In his view, if Congress had intended such an outcome in its enactment of 42 U.S.C §1988 - which allows prevailing parties in civil rights cases to recover reasonable attorney’s fees - it would have explicitly stated so.