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

Mehran on June 7, 2017

Hi @knoxygirl, thanks for your post.

The question asks which of the answer choices, if true, most seriously undermines the author's criticism of the LRCWA's recommendations concerning contingency-fee agreements.

Well, let's assess.

What are the author's criticisms of the LRCWA's recommendation that "uplift" fee arrangements be implemented? There are two main criticisms: (1) that lawyers would be forced to investigate potential clients' financial circumstances, which would be onerous for various reasons (lines 30-40), and (2) that the recommendation would mean that contingency-fee agreements are available only to the least well-off clients, which is unfair and would unjustly limit freedom of contract (lines 41-48).

Answer choice (B) would, if true, undermine criticism (1). If it was true that, *before* the LRCWA's recommendation, lawyers in Western Australia *already generally carefully evaluated prospective clients' financial circumstances* before accepting cases, then the implementation of the "uplift" fee arrangements, as recommended by the LRCWA, is not the cause for this burden. This would undermine the author's first criticism (found in lines 30-40 of the passage).

More abstractly: the author is arguing that the LRCWA recommendation would cause a more onerous client vetting system for lawyers. If lawyers are already engaged in an onerous client vetting system, then this undermines the claim that the LRCWA recommendation is the cause of that effect.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.