LSAT 139 | Section 2 | Reading Comprehension: Q26

RC Question 26 Explanation

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)

___________

1. This mixes up lines 22-23 and lines 55-59.
2. The passage never talked about cases with very high damages.
3. This gives a sufficient condition (“if”). But on lines 22-29, the commission only gave necessary conditions for using contingency arrangements (“Only if”). Also note that the passage says the lawyer must be satisfied the client can’t pay, but C only says the lawyer is “not certain” (too low of a threshold). 
4. CORRECT. See lines 22-29. Contingency arrangements are to be used only as a last resort.
5. 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?