Reading Comprehension

PT139 · S2 · P4 · Q27 Contingency Fees in Western Australia

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

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

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.

Topic

The Western Australia Law Reform Commission's recommendations for contingency-fee arrangements in legal cases and their implications.

Framework

Challenge Position

Main Point

The Law Reform Commission's proposal to allow contingency-fee arrangements only as a last resort and only for financially needy clients is overly restrictive, burdensome for lawyers, and unfair to other clients; there are good reasons to make such arrangements available more broadly. The Most Valuable Sentence: The final paragraph clearly summarizes the main critique, especially where it says,

P1: Background on the Recommendation

The passage starts by letting us know that Western Australia's Law Reform Commission has recommended introducing contingency fees—where lawyers only get paid if they win—in Western Australia, with the rationale that these fees are higher due to the lawyer's risk.

P2: Details and Restrictions of Proposed Arrangement

Here, the passage explains that the Commission is only recommending a specific kind of contingency fee (the "uplift" fee, which is a standard fee plus a bonus if the case is won), and only when other options are exhausted and the client can't otherwise afford to pay. These measures are supposed to prevent lawyers from exploiting the system and to keep compensation fair.

P3: Problems and Burdens for Lawyers

The author jumps in with criticism, pointing out that requiring lawyers to check the client’s finances before entering this type of arrangement makes things complicated and burdensome, because predicting all future costs in litigation is difficult.

27.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the author's criticism of the LRCWA's recommendations concerning contingency-fee agreements?

The proportion of lawsuits filed
No Impact
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.
14% picked this
Correct
Before the LRCWA's recommendations, lawyers
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.
56% picked this
There is strong opposition in
No Impact
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.
4% picked this
The total fees charged by
No Impact
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.
21% picked this
In most jurisdictions in which
No Impact
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% picked this

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