Contingency Fees in Western Australia

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact15% picked this

   The proportion of lawsuits filed by the least well-off litigants tends to be higher in areas where uplift fee arrangements have been widely used

   The author would expect this ... if you offer poorer people the option of the contingency (uplift) arrangement, then they'll be able to pursue litigation. In areas where there aren't uplift arrangements (and thus you have to pay the lawyer up front), poorer people won't be able to afford litigation as much. What would really get at one of the author's points is knowing whether middle-class and "barely rich" people are likely to use uplift arrangements if they're allowed to. The author is arguing that this is an option they would like to take advantage of, if the LRCWA would let them.

   15%
2. B

   Correct53% picked this

   Before the LRCWA's recommendations, lawyers in Western Australia generally made a careful evaluation of prospective clients' financial circumstances before accepting cases that

   Why this is right

   One of the author's criticisms was that lawyers would now face the burdensome task of investigating the financial situation of their clients. This answer is saying, "C'mon, that's not a new problem with uplift arrangements --- most lawyers were already carefully investigating their clients' financials even before the uplift agreement came on the scene."

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

   53%
3. C

   No Impact6% picked this

   There is strong opposition in Western Australia to any legal reform perceived as favoring lawyers, so it is highly unlikely that the LRCWA's recommendations

   The author is evaluating whether the uplift fee is good or not, not predicting whether or not it will be implemented. So an answer about implementation can't weaken / strengthen the author evaluation of whether or not the uplift fee should be implemented.

   6%
4. D

   No Impact22% picked this

   The total fees charged by lawyers who successfully litigate cases under uplift fee arrangements are, on average, only marginally higher than the total fees

   The author's criticisms didn't have anything to do with comparing the total fees charged by uplift lawyers to the fees charged by lawyers without contingency agreements. Perhaps, one could try to construe this as weakening the author's idea that "with contingency arrangements, lawyers work harder / are more diligent". One might think, "if they're really working harder, author, then how come their not billing way more hours; they're only marginally more expensive?" The author never committed to the idea that the lawyers would work way more hours or end up billing more. The author was just saying that the lawyer would care more about winning the case, since their own payment was riding on success.

   22%
5. E

   No Impact5% picked this

   In most jurisdictions in which contingency-fee agreements are allowed, those of the uplift variety are used much less often than are

   Similar to (C), this is just describing the prevalence of certain arrangements (choice C was describing whether Western Australia would become another area where these arrangements would be implemented). The author is evaluating the LRCWA's endorsed type of contingency fee and all the associated rules that go with it. If an answer isn't addressing one of her criticisms or speaking specifically to the LRCWA's plan, then it isn't changing the conversation at all. The fact that something is done in many places is not evidence that it should be done or that it's a good thing. Also, since this answer is saying that the "uplift variety" is much less often used than other contingency fee agreements, if anything it would support the author's general feelings that the LRCWA shouldn't be insisting on this uplift agreement. However, the author's critiques have nothing to do with the fixed percentage of the uplift, but rather all the extra requirements the LRCWA says about who does / doesn't get to partake of this arrangement.

   5%