DISCUSSION: The LRCWA was very hesitant about contingency arrangements. They recommended they be used only when two conditions were met:
- The arrangement was a last resort: the client had no other way to pay.
- The lawyer was sure the client had no other way to pay.
So look for one of these to be the answer. (The conditions are listed in lines 22-29)
- This mixes up lines 22-23 and lines 55-59.
- The passage never talked about cases with very high damages.
- This gives a sufficient condition (“if”). But on lines 22-29, the commission only gave necessary conditions for using contingency arrangements. (“Only if”)
- CORRECT. See lines 22-29. Contingency arrangements are to be used only as a last resort.
- The passage actually never addressed this, though it should have. Under the LRCWA’s arrangement, it’s possible for a lawyer to win a contingency case where the fee is larger than the trial award.
E.g. the lawyer normally charges $100,000. For contingency, they charge $100,000 + $75,000. The lawyer wins the case, but the judge only awards $100,000. So the client has actually lost $75,000.
The passage isn’t clear what would happen in this scenario: does the lawyer get all the money, or does the client get some?
Want advanced RC strategies? → Try the RC Mastery Seminar
Graeme shows how 170+ scorers do RC in real time. Satisfaction guaranteed!