Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the author's criticism of the LRCWA's recommendations ...

Hi, I'm having some difficulty understanding the issue with (A). When reading this passage, my impression was that the second criticism - that the LRCWA's recommendation that contingency fees, only be made available to low SES clients would be unfair - was the more important criticism of the two. The reason I got this impression is that the author says the MOST important reasons for entering into a contingency fee agreement holds for all clients. Moreover, one of the aims cited for the type of agreement being discussed to ensure that lawyers don't take a disproportionate share of a client's award if the case is successful. That seems to be an issue of fairness, albeit in a slightly different context (fairness between client & attorney rather than between low SES clients and middle/high-income clients), but an issue of fairness nonetheless. The fact that the goal of fairness is repeated so much gave me the impression that it is more important than the issue of the additional burden such agreements place on attorneys. So, if the requirement that these types of agreements only be made available to low SES clients turns out to be a non-issue, (e.g., if it's already limited to that demographic, middle/high-income clients are probably not seeking it out, and therefore the requirement would not change the status-quo), then why would that not weaken the author's argument? How do you determine which of the author's criticisms is most important? Thanks in advance for your help!