Top Law Schools

JohnWycliffe wrote:I cannot for the life of me see why the answer is B and not A.

The whole idea of the contingency fee is that lawyers don't get paid a portion of the awarded damages, they get paid their regular fee plus an extra percentage of that fee if they win.

It seems to me that gaining disproportionately means the client being awarded 100 million dollars in damages (after suffering 100 million dollars worth of damages) and the lawyer getting payed 2% of that, despite his normal fee amounting to only 20,000 dollars for the trial. The LRCWA doesn't want that to happen - ie. they don't want the lawyer receiving payment that is of greater monetary value than the legal services rendered.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Contingent+Fee wrote:contingent fee n. a fee to a lawyer which will be due and payable only if there is a successful conclusion of the legal work, usually winning or settling a lawsuit in favor of the client (particularly in negligence cases), or collecting funds due with or without filing a lawsuit. In many states, such agreements must be in writing signed by attorney and client. The fee is generally a percentage of the recovery (money won), but may be partly a fee for time worked and partly a percentage. Although fees are negotiable, a standard contingent fee in accident cases is one-third of the money won, unless particular difficulties exist with the case, making the attorney believe he/she has the right to ask for more. States vary but some put a cap on the amount of fee for cases handled for minors even if the parent as guardian at litem agrees to more. Contingent fee agreements in criminal cases which depend on the outcome are unethical.