Q22

[mrudula_2005]

What is wrong with (B)?

In line 17 the passage discusses how "uplift" agreements would "prevent lawyers from gaining disproportionately from awards of damages..."

I realize the concept of what a lawyer "deserves" is not discussed per se, but given the correct answer choice to 25, which is based on an idea of fairness, (B) in question 22 does seem to be in line with the passage - and though it was not explicitly "tated" as the question stem requires, neither was (A)...(the part in the text that supports A discusses shifts in the risk of not recovering the costs of pursuing a legal action - the bolded part not included in A)

clarity on this one would be great!

thanks

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question.

This is an identification question, so we're looking for something that the author actually says in the passage.

(A) is correct because the author explicitly says that the contingency-fee agreements shift certain risks of legal action from the client to the lawyer. That this answer choice doesn't include every word the author writes is irrelevant, because the risks mentioned in the passage are plainly included under "the risk of legal action."

(B), on the other hand, is incorrect for precisely the reason you identify. The passage has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of what a lawyer "deserves." That could mean anything! Maybe the author thinks lawyers deserve nothing, or everything; we have no way of judging because it never comes up.

(By the way, the answer to question 25 has to do with reasonableness, not with fairness -- and either way, that's not the same as what a lawyer "deserves.")

Does that clear this one up for you at all?

[shirando21]

I picked E.

I understand that contigency-fee agreement is like, for example, in an employment litigation, say the agreement is that the client pay $3000 regular fees for lawyer's service plus 30% of what the court awards the client for damage. So if the court finally awarded $10,000 to the client, the client pays $3000+0.3*$10000=$6,000.

E says involve, so I thought the agreed-upon percentage of the damage is a part of the total fee, so it is involved....

Or maybe we cannot use "involve" this way

Anyone?

[shirando21]

Also, if the client does not win the case, does the client still pay the normal cost part? in the example, the first $3,000?

[sunnyivon]

Also, if the client does not win the case, does the client still pay the normal cost part? in the example, the first $3,000?

The problem of answer E, to me, is that the passage explicitly mentioned the contingency-fee is the sum of normal fee and an additional percentage of that NORMAL FEE.
However, answer E basically says the contingency-fee = normal fee + percentage of the client's DAMAGES.

[shirando21]

you are right, normal fee plus an agreed-upon additional percentage of that fee, which refers to the normal fee.

[nflamel69]

E is wrong is because of the subtle detail shift. if you read closely, you'll find contingency fee only means calling for payment only if the lawyer wins. the topic about how much plaintiff pays only applies to the uplifting fee.

B is wrong for the same reason of detail shift. I honestly don't know if you can equate just compensation with how much they deserve, I personally don't see it as too much of a jump. But B suggest the uplift fee actually works the way they intend to, which we have no idea whether they actually work or not.

[wgutx08]

This may be a stupid question but ...

I totally saw the part (L52-55) supporting A. but I eliminated it since I thought this is only the motivation for the clients (L50) to enter such an agreement. The lawyers, on the other hand, of course do not wish this risk shift and probably only do this to attract clients.

So if the intention is only from one side, how can one say the agreement (generally) "serve the purpose of"...? I feel that would mean both sides of the agreement want it to function in that way...

will greatly appreciate your help!

[tommywallach]

Hey Wgut,

Nowhere in (A) does it refer to who "wants" these agreements. It just says that agreements "serve the purpose" (just another way to say "accomplish") of transferring risk. We know they do that. It doesn't actually matter if that's what lawyers want.

I could also say that laws against marijuana possession serve the purpose of keeping drugs off the street. It doesn't matter who does or doesn't want those laws.

Hope that helps!

-t

[513852276]

B may also be wrong because "intended to prevent lawyers to gain disproportional.." especially refers to "uplift" fees, which is just one type of contigenncy-fee. There is a hasty generalization in answer choice B. In general, we have no idea of what lawyer "deserve". Moreover, the first passage suggests contigency-fee results to "charges generally exceed regular fees" which can suggest a contrary to answer choice B.

[jm.kahn]

Why is A correct when it says "risk of pursuing legal action" whereas the passage only refers to "financial" risk in "risk of recovering those costs and of not obtaining the damages"?

There is a big difference in overall risk vs financial risk as the risk of pursuing legal action can include personal time/effort/stress etc.

[haeeunjee]

Why is A correct when it says "risk of pursuing legal action" whereas the passage only refers to "financial" risk in "risk of recovering those costs and of not obtaining the damages"?

There is a big difference in overall risk vs financial risk as the risk of pursuing legal action can include personal time/effort/stress etc.

I don't think we can eliminate (A) as a right answer just because it doesn't modify/specify the kind of risk that's being talked about. There could be countless types of risks -- emotional, time, energy, social, etc -- but the one that has constantly been mentioned and referred to in the passage is that of financial risk, so I think it would be reasonable, as a reader, to assume that when the answer choice says "risk," it is referring to "financial risk." Either way, it is not wrong to not specify which risk, since it is still correct that the c-fee agreements transfer a type of risk.

I was hesitant with (A) because it combined two sentences (51-55), but I think it logically makes sense: contingency-fee agreements provide financing for the costs of pursuing legal action; the risk of not recovering these costs are shifted from client to lawyer. Therefore, the risk of not recovering costs = risk of pursuing legal action. (A) states: c-fee agreements transfer risk of pursuing a legal action from client to lawyer.

For (B), I kept it as a contender because I DO think that the fairness of the fee and what lawyers "deserve" is connected. But I think that we can eliminate (B) because it's making a descriptive or I guess prescriptive (future) claim, saying that uplift agreements "would normally not result in lawyers..." We don't actually know if uplight agreements would result in whatever or not. Remember, the uplift agreement is a recommendation by the law commission; they HOPE that uplight agreements would normally result in fairness (or I guess, their sense of what fairness is). Lines (17-19): "This restriction is intended to prevent lawyers..." Will it actually happen? Don't know.

(E) can be eliminated because it says "usually c-fee agreements...." We do not know what the majority of c-fee agreements are like, ONLY what a specific type of agreement (uplift) are like, and even so, the answer is wrong because of the switch from "agreed upon % of fee" to "% of damages."