Contingency Fees in Western Australia

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsPrimary PurposeLaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

In October 1999, the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia (LRCWA) issued its report, “Review of the Civil and Criminal Justice System.” Buried within its 400 pages are several important recommendations for introducing contingency fees for lawyers’ services into the state of Western Australia. Contingency-fee agreements call for payment only if the lawyer’s risk of financial loss, such charges generally exceed regular fees.

Although there are various types of contingency-fee arrangements, the LRCWA has recommended that only one type be introduced: “uplift” fee arrangements, which in the case of a successful outcome require the client to pay the lawyer’s normal fee plus an agreed-upon additional percentage of that fee. This restriction is intended to prevent is financially unable to pay the fee in the event that sufficient damages are not awarded.

Unfortunately, under this recommendation, lawyers wishing to enter into an uplift fee arrangement would be forced to investigate not only the legal issues affecting any proposed litigation, but also the financial circumstances of the potential client and the probable cost of the litigation. This process would likely be onerous for a number may change as the case unfolds, such as strategies adopted by the opposing side.

In addition to being burdensome for lawyers, the proposal to make contingency-fee agreements available only to the least well-off clients would be unfair to other clients. This restriction would unjustly limit freedom of contract and would, in effect, make certain types of litigation inaccessible to middle-income people or even wealthy people who it is reasonable to assume that such arrangements increase lawyers’ diligence and commitment to their cases.

What this question is testing

Primary Purpose

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

23.

The author’s main purpose in the passage

Answer choices

Opposite2% picked this
defend a proposed reform against
The author is subjecting a proposed reform to criticism, not defending it against criticism. Her purpose is to critique the LRCWA's proposed reforms.
2%
Out of Scope: legal system / remedies3% picked this
identify the current shortcomings of a legal system and suggest how these
The author is identifying the shortcomings with the LRCWA's proposed recommendations. The author isn't criticizing the current situation, nor is she talking about the shortcomings of the legal system overall (it's much more narrowly about uplift contingency fee arrangements). Finally, she only points out problems but doesn't suggest how they should be remedied.
3%
Too Strong19% picked this
support the view that a recommended change would actually worsen the situation it was
Too Strong: actually worsen Out of Scope: intent to improve This answer is saying that the author was supporting the view that the LRCWA's proposed recommendations would actually worsen the situation they were intended to improve. What situation were they intended to improve? That notion is out of scope. And even though the author listed lots of qualms and reservations with these recommendations, there isn't any crystallized pessimism that "overall, this will actually worsen the situation". This answer would definitely be worth keeping around on a 1st pass, because even though we can't sign off on all the wording, it's pretty close to the right gist.
19%
Contradicted: not be significantly changed2% picked this
show that a legal system would not be significantly changed if certain proposed
This doesn't sound at all like "point out the faults in a new proposal". It sounds like, "argue that a proposal really won't change anything". The author's 3rd and 4th paragraphs are where she lists complaints she has about this system, all of which sound like changes. Lawyers, under this new set of proposed reforms, will have to undergo onerous background research of their clients' financials. People who theoretically have the money to pay a lawyer but would rather use contingency arrangements can no longer do so. It would "make certain types of litigation inaccessible to middle-income people". And so forth.
2%
Correct74% picked this
explain a suggested reform and critically
Why this is right
The first two paragraphs "explain the suggested reform", breaking down the LRCWA's proposed recommendations. The last two paragraphs critically evaluate it, listing out the author's concerns with how these recommendations could go wrong. In a head to head battle against (C), we might ask either/both of our usual big picture questions: 1. Does one answer better wrap its arms around the whole passage? 2. Does one answer have any wording that is too strong or out of scope? On both levels, (E) wins. It has a pair of descriptions that collectively touch on each of the two halves of the passage. And every word it says seems descriptively accurate and supported, whereas in (C) we had to worry about language like "actually worsen" and "the situation it was intended to improve".
Skill tested: Primary Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
74%

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free