Q25

[bashara.jeff]

I'm not clear on why C is incorrect. I had difficulty distinguishing between choices A, B, and C on this question. I chose C because I inferred that since the client agrees upon the fee, they are the arbiter of what is proportionate.

[rinagoldfield]

Hard question. (A), (B), and (C) are all very tempting.

Let’s look at the context first:

The LRCWA recommends that lawyers charge their "normal fee plus an agreed upon additional percentage of that fee" in contingency-fee arrangements (lines 15-17). This extra fee reflects "the lawyer’s risk of financial loss" in such arrangements. Yet this extra fee is also restricted to "ensure that just compensation to plaintiffs is not eroded" (lines 19-20).

So the size of this extra fee must strike a balance between the lawyer’s and the plaintiff’s needs for just compensation. On the one hand, the lawyer must receive compensation for his professional services AND for the extra risk he took on. On the other hand, the plaintiff must receive compensation for whatever damages he suffered.

If either side takes too much, the other side gets gypped.

(B) reflects this balance. It acknowledges that the lawyer deserves compensation for the risk he took on as well as for the services he rendered. Yet it also acknowledges that any amount MORE than that would be too much. This extra amount would cut into the plaintiff’s compensation, and would be an unjust distribution of the award / settlement.

(C) brings in what the clients consider fair. This was not discussed in the passage. To say that "just compensation" is determined by the clients/plaintiffs assumes too much. (C) is out of scope.

(A) doesn’t acknowledge that the lawyer deserves more than his normal fees in these kinds of arrangements. He deserves compensation for the risk he takes on as well as for his professional services. (A) is unsupported.

Does that make sense? This is all very dense seeming.

[bashara.jeff]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense now. Thanks for your help!

[FarOutsidetheBox]

What about (E)? I was torn between B and E and ultimately picked B, but I'm having a hard time seeing why exactly E is wrong.

The passage mentions that one reason the fees shouldn't be too high is to "ensure that just compensation to the plaintiffs is not eroded" i.e., that the plaintiff gets what he deserves. Why isn't this reflected in (E)?

Is it just too much of a jump to equate "fair" with "intent of jury/judge"? That's the best I can come up with.

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your question, FarOutsideTheBox!

(E) is out in this case because neither judge nor jury are mentioned here. As you say above, it’s a jump to go from "fair" to "intent of judge/jury."

The intentions of judges are not synonymous with "fairness" in my mind. It would be a very generous gift to the judges of the world to say that their words are the definition of fairness! But alas, such is not the case.

Be wary, as always, of bringing in outside assumptions.

[laura.bach]

Sorry, I still don't understand why (E) is wrong.

"The restriction is intended to prevent lawyers from gaining disproportionately from awards of damages and thus to ensure that just compensation is not eroded." (17-20)

The passage seems to explicitly state that the rule is in place to keep a plaintiff from losing all of their awarded compensation to a lawyer who changes the proportion of earnings after the award has been assigned.

The judge/jury make a ruling based on what they believe is 'just' for the plaintiff/client to receive. To avoid eroding this 'just' compensation, isn't the law to restrict lawyers from receiving too much of the compensation?

IE - Determination is plaintiff receives $20 million.
Lawyer takes $19 million.
Plaintiff only receives $1 million.

The plaintiff's compensation was almost totally eroded, because the attorney received such a high proportion of the compensation. A higher proportion, I think we could assume, than the judge/jury intended.

Isn't the clause to protect against this scenario? As (E) would indicate?

(Although now I feel the "I think we could assume" may undermine this way of thinking all together...)