Advocacy and Rhetoric vs. Scholarship and Evidence in the Debate over Contingency Fees: A Reply to Professor Brickman
Herbert M. Kritzer
University of Minnesota Law School
Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol. 82, pp. 477-507, 2004
This paper responds to Lester Brickman's critique of some of the analyses presented in my paper, Seven Dogged Myths Concerning Contingency Fees (SSRN Abstract No. 907863). In this paper, I show that Brickman misrepresents my discussion at several key points, and relies on data that scholars have shown to be highly dubious. I draw on data from my own research and a number of generally available sets of data to demonstrate the many of the assumptions underlying Brickman's critique fail to reflect systematic evidence produced by a range of institutions and scholars.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 31
Keywords: Contingency fee, contingent fee, plaintiffs lawyers, tort, lawyer feesAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: June 14, 2006
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo7 in 1.391 seconds