The Nevada Supreme Court has halted a ballot initiative that sought to cap the percentage of fees attorneys can received in civil cases.

The "Nevadans for Fair Recovery," a group backed by Uber, had proposed the ballot initiative to cap attorney fees in civil cases at 20 percent. The petition was challenged by the Nevada Justice Association and a group representing sexual assault survivors who have filed lawsuits against Uber.

That group -- the Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability -- has argued that the initiative to cap attorney fees would make it easier for Uber to hire expensive attorneys to fight lawsuits, while limiting citizen's abilities to find legal representation.

The Nevada Justice Association has said that attorney fees allows lawyers to work for clients who could otherwise not afford them.

"We're thrilled that the Nevada Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Uber's cynical scheme to sidestep accountability for the countless sexual assault cases and other harms it has enabled under its watch," attorney Deepak Gupta, who represents Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability and the Nevada Justice Association, said in a statement. "This victory ensures that Nevadans who are harmed, injured, or cheated will retain their fundamental right to seek justice through the courts."

Meanwhile, the Nevadans for Fair Recovery said the Supreme Court's order overruling a petition with valid signatures is "unprecedented," and accused the justices of siding with "billboard attorneys."

"The justices have protected a system that enables attorneys to fly on private jets, while everyday Nevadans foot the bill," the group said in a statement.

The group said it intends to implement an "aggressive campaign to educate voters about how billboard attorneys have rigged the system to put their interests over Nevadans."

Opponents of contingency fees have argued they encourage frivolous litigation and can encourage attorneys to settle for less than what could possibly be awarded. But proponents have said contingency fees improve access for plaintiffs who couldn't otherwise afford an attorney, and give lawyers an incentive to win cases.

In September, Nevadans for Fair Recovery submitted more than 206,000 signatures to county offices for the proposed initiative, which could have appeared on the 2026 ballot. The Nevada Justice Association has filed a lawsuit in Carson City District Court challenging the proposal and asking for the petition to be blocked from gathering signatures.

A Carson City district court judge dismissed the suit in May, but the Supreme Court overturned the ruling in Monday's order. The justices found that the initiative was "misleading and confusing," and created "ambiguity" as to how the initiative would affect existing caps in medical malpractice cases and cases in which a private attorney represents the state of Nevada.

Attorney fees in medical malpractice cases are currently capped at 35 percent, while private attorneys representing the sate can obtain 25 percent.

"The description of effect thus leaves potential signatories with more questions about the Initiative's effect than it answers," the justices wrote in Monday's order.

Eva Segerblom, the president of the Nevada Justice Association, said Tuesday that if Nevadans for Fair Recovery want to bring forth another petition, the language would have to be re-written and signatures would have to be gathered again. She also said the initiative was an example of "California tech billionaires" investing money to gather signatures to affect Nevada law.

"Our Supreme Court did the right thing by upholding Nevada law and preventing misleading ballot initiatives from going forward," Segerblom said.