LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8916
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#26361
Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10971)

The correct answer choice is (B)

This question asks us to weaken the author’s criticism of the LRCWA’s recommendations concerning contingency-fee agreements. As discussed in our VIEWSTAMP analysis above, the author’s argument against such agreements is outlined in the third and fourth paragraphs. The argument is largely speculative, assuming that the uplift agreements will cause an unfair burden on both lawyers and some clients. As with any causal argument, we can weaken this one by showing that the uplift agreements will not necessarily have the undesirable effects predicted by the author.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice addresses the popularity of uplift agreements, but that point is not central to the author's criticism of the LRCWA's recommendatinos. The author noted that "This restriction would unjustly limit freedom of contract," and that point is not affected by the current percentages of lawsuits filed by various groups.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. If lawyers always took steps to evaluate a prospective client’s financial circumstances before taking on a case, then the introduction of the uplift agreement requirements will not place an unfair burden on them (lines 30-35). This answer choice weakens the causal relationship suggested by the author, and undermines her criticism of the LRCWA’s recommendations.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice is incorrect for two reasons: First, just because the LRCWA’s recommendations are unlikely to be implemented does not make their claims any less valid. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that the legal reform introduced by the LRCWA will be perceived as favoring lawyers.

Answer choice (D): This is the Opposite answer. If the total fees paid to lawyers working under uplift fee arrangements are virtually the same as those paid to lawyers who do not rely on such agreements, then the LRCWA’s recommendations make little sense. This would only bolster the author’s position that the proposed reform is onerous, strengthening her criticism of the LRCWA.

Answer choice (E): The relative lack of popularity of uplift agreements in jurisdictions that allow contingency-fee agreements has little bearing on the issue at stake, because we do not know why they are unpopular. If anything, this observation might add some credibility to the author’s view that uplift agreements are too burdensome to lawyers.
 alee
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: Mar 21, 2012
|
#4380
Hi guys,

I have a question about Q27, Section 4, PT 60, which asks, 'which one one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the author's criticism of the LRCWA's recommendations concerning contingency-fee agreements?'.

My understanding of the author's criticism is the allegation contingency fee agreements would be made available only to the least well-off clients and thereby be unfair to other clients because it would make certain types of a litigation inaccessible to middle income/wealthy clients.

The 'grounding' for this seems to be the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph, which says that in applying a contingency fee, a lawyer must be satisfied that the client is unable to pay in the event that sufficient damages are not awarded. However a lawyer could who conducts 'careful evaluation of prospective clients' financial circumstances' (as option B suggests) might nonetheless be satisfied that a middle income/wealthy client fits this criteria.

I struggled to come up with the above ^^ rationale for option B, I actually selected D and ended up getting 23/27 for this one... Any help would be fantastic!
 Steve Stein
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1153
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2011
|
#4382
Hi Alee,

First of all, congrats on your solid performance! In the question that you asked about, the author criticized the LRCWA recommendation for more than one reason: the author does mention the unfairness that you mentioned, but also consider the third paragraph: There, the author complains that the LRCWA recommendation would necessitate investigation into the financial circumstances of prospective clients. If, as answer B provides, the lawyers were already doing that, then the author's critique is no longer valid.

I hope that's helpful! let me know--thanks!

~Steve
 Nina
  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: Sep 11, 2012
|
#5954
Is answer B correct because it refutes author's argument that "under this recommendation, lawyers have to additionally investigate client's financial circumstances"?
and also, why is D incorrect? is that only because of the wording "on average"?

Thanks a lot!
 Steve Stein
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1153
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2011
|
#5971
Hi Nina,

That's correct--if there were already such investigations going on, then that critique falls apart. D is incorrect, because a comparison of those rates wouldn't really be relevant to the author's argument.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know--thanks!

~Steve
 Nina
  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: Sep 11, 2012
|
#5989
Hey Steve,

Thank you for your analysis! It does make sense to me, and i just have a quick question:

if, in answer D, there is no such wording of "on average", would it refutes the author's criticism that "the total fee under this recommendation will be too high to be accessible to middle-income people or even wealthy people who might not be able to liquidate assets"?

Thanks again!
 Steve Stein
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1153
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2011
|
#6055
Hi Nina,

In that instance, it's not really about the average that ends up getting charged--it's more about when and if the representation gets paid for; the quote you reference deals with the fact that contingency fees are paid only after a case is won, which can be very helpful. So, the argument goes, limiting certain clients' access to contingency fee deals would be unfair.

I hope that's helpful--let me know whether it's clear--thanks!

~Steve
User avatar
 PresidentLSAT
  • Posts: 87
  • Joined: Apr 19, 2021
|
#91764
For this question, B was the closest because when I thought of criticisms to uplift agreements, I knew the author talked about the unanticipated expenses that could come from rigorous litigation as the case unfolds. Author also noted that the cost increment can come from keep up with strategies that are adopted by opposing counsel. I ruled out B because despite the fact that lawyers heavily scrutinize financial costs in cases, the scrutiny will not cover a significant factor that could spike the cost of litigation-thus opposing counsel strategy. How will an evaluation that is meant to analyze the financial aspects of complex or protracted litigation address the how cost could be impacted precisely because of opposing counsel.


What am I missing here?

I'm guessing the lesson here would be to pick the answer with most familiarity. I'm a bit lost lol
 Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1358
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2011
|
#91838
Hi President,

Let's start by looking at the author's argument against the LRCWA. The author is concerned that it's unfair to only allow poorer litigants to use the contingent fee system, and the author is concerned that having to investigate a litigant's financial situation prior to a long or protracted case would be an unfair burden on attorneys. We are looking for an answer choice that weakens those potential concerns.

Answer choice (B) says that the second reason isn't an actual concern. It wouldn't place an extra burden on lawyers in those cases because lawyers are ALREADY are doing that financial analysis. It undermine's the author's concern because it says that the rule doesn't cause anything new for lawyers to do. It would be like if there was a law that you had to open your door before leaving your house. Sure, it's a new regulation, but it doesn't change how most people leave their homes. It's no significant extra burden. The risk of costs by opposing tactics isn't something that is unique to the uplift cases. It's already part of the analysis these lawyers do to see if they want to take a case anyway.

Hope that helps!
User avatar
 annabelle.swift
  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: Sep 01, 2021
|
#95970
Hi, I have 2 concerns about this question.

1) I thought B would be correct IF it had said "before accepting any cases" instead of "before accepting cases that might involve complex or protracted litigation." Even if lawyers were investigating clients' financial circumstances before accepting complex cases, it could still be onerous for lawyers to do such investigation before accepting simpler cases (which strengthens the author's criticism).

2) Can you explain how D would make LRCWA's recommendations "make little sense" according to the original post?

Thank you!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.