Camp Lejeune Lawsuits Get Retroactive Fixes: New Rules Cap Attorney Fees at 25% and Clarify Proof Standard

This bill, the Ensuring Justice for Camp Lejeune Victims Act of 2025, is essentially a high-level software patch for the 2022 law that allowed people harmed by contaminated water at Camp Lejeune to sue the government. It doesn’t create a new right to sue, but it cleans up the procedural mess and clarifies the rules for the thousands of cases already moving through the system. Crucially, these changes are not just for future cases; Section 3 makes them fully retroactive to August 10, 2022, meaning they apply to virtually every lawsuit filed under the original act.

Expanding the Playing Field, Clarifying the Link

One major fix is where these trials can actually happen. Under the original law, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina got exclusive jurisdiction, essentially creating a massive bottleneck. Section 2 keeps that court in charge of coordinating all the initial paperwork and pretrial motions, but it now allows individual cases to be transferred for trial to any district court in North Carolina (Eastern, Middle, or Western) or even the District of South Carolina. This is a big win for plaintiffs because it offers logistical flexibility and should help speed up the process by distributing the caseload across more courts. If you were exposed at Lejeune and live in, say, Asheville, you might now be able to have your trial closer to home in the Western District.

Another key clarification involves the standard of proof. To win a case, you still need to show you were present at Camp Lejeune for at least 30 days and that you suffered harm. However, Section 2 clarifies how you prove the link between the water contamination and your specific illness. You don't need absolute proof, but you must present evidence showing the connection is “at least as likely as not.” This is a legal term that sets a specific bar for evidence—it means the court must be convinced that there is a 50% or greater chance that the water caused your harm. This definition provides clarity for both the courts and the people bringing the lawsuits, giving everyone a clearer target for their evidence.

The Lawyer Fee Cap: A Double-Edged Sword

Perhaps the most impactful change for victims is the strict cap on attorney fees (Section 2). Lawsuits like these are usually handled on a contingency basis, meaning the lawyer only gets paid if you win, and their fee is a percentage of the final award. This bill puts clear limits on that percentage:

• 20% maximum if the claim settles before a lawsuit is officially filed.
• 25% maximum if the case is settled or results in a judgment after the lawsuit is officially filed.

For a victim receiving a $1 million settlement, this means the most their lawyer can take is $250,000, regardless of the complexity or time spent on the case. While these caps are intended as consumer protection to ensure victims keep more of their recovery, they are also significantly lower than typical tort litigation contingency fees, which often run closer to 33% or 40%. The upside is clear: more money stays with the victim. The potential challenge is that these lower caps could discourage some law firms from taking on the most complex or risky cases, although the sheer volume of Lejeune claims likely mitigates this risk.

Finally, the bill addresses the issue of multiple firms working together, stating that any fee splitting among attorneys must reflect the “actual work performed” by each firm. This is a sensible rule designed to ensure that firms aren't taking a cut of the settlement without contributing meaningfully to the case, preventing unnecessary administrative costs from being passed on to the victim.