#25 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Purpose

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10971)

The correct answer choice is (B)

This Specific Reference/Purpose question asks us to identify what the author means by the remark that LRCWA’s restriction involving uplift agreements is intended to prevent lawyers from “gaining disproportionately from awards of damages” (lines 18-19). Such questions almost always require a more thorough understanding of the context in which the quoted reference appears, and their answers should generally be prephrased. The remark refers to the fact that lawyers would gain “disproportionately” if their fees were contingent on the amount of damages awarded in the case: their compensation would be too high in proportion to the services they gave. This prephrase agrees with answer choice (B), which is correct.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect, because the phrase in question refers to a proportional benefit, not to the actual amount of the benefit. The author does not claim that lawyers would receive more money than is justified by the value of the services they rendered. If their services are valued in relation to the damages received in the case, then their compensation would be consistent with that valuation.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. See prephrase above.

Answer choice (C): The author does not comment on what payment the client would consider to be fair.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice describes the nature of contingency fees in general: lawyers make more if the case is successful than if it is unsuccessful. This, by itself, is not what the LRCWA is trying to prevent. After all, uplift agreements work in the same way: clients pay the lawyer’s normal fee plus an agreed-upon additional percentage of that fee. The “disproportionate” gain here refers specifically to contingency-fee agreements where lawyers’ compensation is based on a percentage of the damages awarded in the case.

Answer choice (E): The passage provides no information to help us determine what proportion of the damages the jury intended for the lawyers to receive.

[allisonellen7]

Hi there!
I am struggling with why C or E couldn't be correct. With E it addresses that the restriction is "to ensure that just compensation to plaintiffs is not eroded" by saying that it would prevent lawyers from receiving a higher proportion of the damages awarded to the client than the judge or jury that awarded the damages intended. And C addresses that the uplift fee is an agreed-upon additional percentage of the lawyer's normal fee, so really the this restriction only prevents lawyers from receiving a higher proportion of the damages awarded to the client than they had previously agreed upon (in other words, that the client considers fair). Unless it is too big of a jump to assume that what they agreed upon is what the client considers fair? Thanks so much for your help!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi allisonellen7,

The question asks us to identify what the author means by the remark that LRCWA’s restriction involving uplift agreements is intended to prevent lawyers from “gaining disproportionately from awards of damages” (lines 18-19). The remark refers to the fact that lawyers would gain “disproportionately” if their fees were contingent on the amount of damages awarded in the case: their compensation would be too high in proportion to the damages awarded. This prephrase agrees with answer choice (B), which is correct.

Answer choice (C) is incorrect, because the author does not comment on what payment the client would consider to be fair. As you said yourself, this is too big of a jump to make here. As far as answer choice (E) is concerned, the passage provides no information to help us determine what proportion of the damages the jury intended for the lawyers to receive.

Hope this helps a bit!

[lanereuden]

But it says to ensure “just compensation”....”just” is not the same as “fair”? I still do Not see how to reconcile this

[Adam Tyson]

I think just and fair are pretty good synonyms, lanereuden! If a result in a trial is just, it is fair. The first online dictionary definition I pulled up for "just" reads "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." Does that help?

[jdleggett]

Even though B is the longest answer, comparing it to the condenders, C and E, it is the most "vanilla."

C and E are also narrower in scope, whereas B is a benign, textbook definition of "disproportionate gain."

[Luke Haqq]

Hi jdleggett!

Just to embellish on why (B) is correct, it encompasses fairness to the attorney as well as to the client. The first paragraph (lines 8-10) tells us contingency fee arrangements compensate attorneys for risk of financial loss. The second paragraph (lines 17-20) mention that the recommended contingency fee arrangement also be just/fair for the client.

(C) and (E) have other problems. (C) discusses what the "client considers fair," which isn't discussed near the lines referenced in this question. (E) refers to what "the judge or the jury ... intended the lawyer to receive," which again isn't mentioned in the second paragraph.