San Francisco, CA – August 21, 2025 – Wildfire litigation in California is a high-stakes, high-cost endeavor, with law firms often facing millions in upfront expenses to pursue claims against utility companies like Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE). These cases, driven by devastating fires such as the 2018 Camp Fire and the 2025 Eaton Fire, require significant financial resources for expert witnesses, investigations, and client acquisition. To manage these costs, California law firms employ a range of strategic approaches, balancing financial risk with the potential for substantial recoveries. Below, we explore the key strategies firms use to navigate the financial challenges of wildfire litigation.
Contingency Fee Arrangements to Eliminate Client Costs
Most California wildfire law firms operate on a contingency fee basis, meaning clients pay no upfront legal fees, and attorneys only receive payment if the case is successful. Firms like The Simon Law Group, Wisner Baum, and Adler Law Group emphasize this model, advancing all litigation costs, including expert fees and court expenses, to remove financial barriers for victims. For example, Wisner Baum notes that clients “pay nothing unless we win your case,” with the firm covering costs for fire investigation experts and other specialists. This approach allows firms to take on large volumes of clients, particularly underinsured victims, while deferring payment until a settlement or verdict is secured.
Building a “War Chest” from Prior Wins
To fund the multimillion-dollar upfront costs of wildfire litigation, many firms rely on a “war chest” built from previous settlements and verdicts. According to a recent Law.com report, firms like Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP and Frantz Law Group avoid third-party litigation funding, instead using profits from past successes—such as the $13.5 billion PG&E settlement for the 2018 Camp Fire or $2 billion for Southern California wildfire victims—to finance new cases. This self-funding strategy allows firms to maintain control over litigation decisions and avoid sharing contingency fees with external funders. By diversifying their practice areas to include personal injury, employment law, or business litigation, firms ensure a steady cash flow to support the long timelines of wildfire cases, which can take 24 to 28 months to resolve.
Strategic Client Acquisition Through Marketing
Wildfire litigation often involves mass torts with thousands of plaintiffs, requiring firms to invest heavily in client acquisition. Firms allocate significant budgets to marketing campaigns, including billboards, social media ads, and town hall events, to attract large groups of clients. The Simon Law Group and Sokolove Law, for instance, emphasize free consultations to build their client base, particularly for recent fires like the 2025 Eaton Fire. However, firms must balance these costs with effective cash flow management, as settlements may be delayed due to extended litigation or utility bankruptcies, as seen in PG&E’s 2019 Chapter 11 filing. Some firms, like Watts Law Firm, have established local offices in affected areas like Chico and Santa Rosa to enhance community engagement and streamline client outreach.
Collaboration and Consortiums for Resource Sharing
To mitigate financial risks, firms often form consortiums to pool resources and expertise. Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger, for example, collaborates with firms like Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Robins Cloud LLP as co-lead counsel in major wildfire cases, sharing the costs of discovery, expert witnesses, and depositions. This approach, seen in litigation against PG&E for the 2017 North Bay Fires, allows firms to distribute financial burdens while leveraging collective experience to strengthen cases. Such partnerships also enhance credibility with courts and plaintiffs, as demonstrated by Walkup Melodia’s role in opposing PG&E’s legal motions.
Avoiding Third-Party Litigation Funding
While third-party litigation funding is gaining traction in wildfire cases, with firms like Jefferies Financial Group and Oppenheimer Holdings offering financing for cases like the Eaton and Palisades Fires, many California firms opt against it. Attorneys prefer to maintain autonomy over case strategy and avoid splitting contingency fees, which can reach 33-40% of settlements. Instead, firms like CaseyGerry and Northern California Fire Lawyers rely on their own financial reserves and diversified practice areas to cover costs, citing the ability to negotiate directly with defendants like PG&E or SCE without external influence. This approach also aligns with California ethics guidelines, which require attorneys to disclose funding agreements to clients but not in court.
Leveraging Inverse Condemnation and Statutory Advantages
California’s unique legal framework, particularly the doctrine of inverse condemnation, allows firms to pursue claims against utilities without proving negligence, reducing the evidentiary burden and associated costs. As noted by Legal Planet, this strict liability rule enables firms to seek compensation for property damage and other losses even when utilities act reasonably, provided their equipment caused the fire. Firms like Hueston Hennigan have capitalized on this by developing mediation protocols to streamline settlements, as seen in the $4 billion Maui wildfire settlement. Additionally, the California Wildfire Fund, established to cover damages exceeding $1 billion for non-negligent utilities, provides a financial backstop that firms can tap into, reducing the risk of unrecoverable costs.
Challenges and Ethical Considerations
Despite these strategies, firms face challenges, including the emotional and financial toll on clients and the risk of underinsured losses. Posts on X highlight public frustration with legal costs, such as the $1.8 million spent by Los Angeles to defend against homelessness-related lawsuits, underscoring the need for transparency in legal spending. Firms must also navigate ethical concerns, such as avoiding predatory marketing tactics criticized in Santa Rosa and Napa after the 2017 fires. Experienced firms like Adler Law Group emphasize personalized attention and collaboration with experts like arborists to ensure accurate damage assessments, maintaining client trust while managing costs.
Looking Ahead
As California wildfires grow in frequency and severity—over 8,000 fires were reported in 2024 alone—law firms continue to refine their strategies to manage litigation costs effectively. By leveraging contingency fees, prior winnings, consortiums, and California’s favorable legal doctrines, firms like Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP, Wisner Baum, and others are well-positioned to represent victims while holding utilities accountable. For those affected by wildfires, contacting firms for free consultations remains a critical first step, with resources available at sites like norcalfirelawyers.com or wisnerbaum.com.