Contingency Fees in Western Australia

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Strong Enough10% picked this

   receiving a payment that is of greater monetary value than the legal services rendered

   This sounds like something the author would agree is a true statement, but it doesn't capture the meaning behind the phrase in question. It is true that if the lawyer is getting paid unfairly high, then they are receiving a payment in excess of the cost of their services. But that's also true of the uplift fee arrangement. The lawyers who get "their normal fee + 20% of their normal fee are also getting paid more than the monetary value of the services rendered. Since this answer choice doesn't differentiate between the uplift fee that the LRCWA finds acceptable and the unfair alternative (where lawyers can gain a disproportionate share of the awards), it doesn't capture the meaning of how we're describing the alternative.

   10%
2. B

   Correct68% picked this

   receiving a higher portion of the total amount awarded in damages than is reasonable compensation for the professional services rendered and

   Why this is right

   This is saying that the phrase essentially means that lawyers would be getting paid an unreasonably high portion, which seems like a good match for a "disproportionate share of awards". The uplift fee endorsed by the LRCWA is meant to compensate the lawyer for services rendered + that extra percentage for risk assumed (the lawyer is assuming risk, because if she doesn't win the case, she doesn't get paid). But keeping the uplift fee at a fixed percentage is meant to find the "fair" bonus amount the lawyer should get for assuming the risk of contingency payment. If there's weren't a fixed fee and lawyers could say, "I'll do this on a contingency basis, but if we win, I get 90% of the damages", then the lawyer would be getting an unreasonable slice of the pie.

   Skill tested: Meaning in Context · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   68%
3. C

   Out of Scope9% picked this

   receiving a higher proportion of the damages awarded to the client than the

   Out of Scope: client's sense of fair This is a tough answer to get rid of, since a lawyer getting 90% of the damages would probably have a client who thinks, "Hey, that seems unfairly high." But we have to judge these answers from the context in which they appeared. The LRCWA is not saying anything about clients perceived sense of "fairness" (for all we know, clients think the uplift fee is already unfair). The LRCWA seems to have its own standards of what "just compensation to plaintiffs" would be, and is mandating this one style of uplift fee to make sure that just compensation is not eroded. Essentially, this answer loses to (B) because "clients' perception of fairness" is just more out of scope than is anything discussed in (B).

   9%
4. D

   Doesn't Distinguish From Uplift5% picked this

   receiving a payment that is higher than the lawyer would have received had the client's

   This is just like (A), in the sense that it offers a true statement, but not one that conveys how "gaining disproportionately / eroding just compensation" is an alternative to the uplift fee the LRCWA endorses. Whether you're going with the fixed uplift fee or the potentially unfair unrestricted-surcharge, the lawyer will always be receiving more payment than if they had lost the case. If the client's case is unsuccessful, the lawyer gets $0 in a contingency fee arrangement. So the fact that the lawyer gets more than $0 when the case is successful is not what the passage means by "gaining disproportionately from awards of damages".

   5%
5. E

   Out of Scope: Judge/jury's intent8% picked this

   receiving a higher proportion of the damages awarded to the client than the judge or the jury that awarded the damages

   This answer feels the same as (C) did. If a lawyer is getting an unfair slice of the winnings from a case, it is probably true that the client will think it's an unfairly high proportion and the judge/jury will probably think, "hey, we didn't want the lawyer to get that much". But just like (C), there's no context in the passage for talking about what the judge or jury intended. We only have the context of what the LRCWA would find unpalatable or a threat to just compensation for plaintiffs.

   8%