Advocacy and Rhetoric vs. Scholarship and Evidence in the Debate over Contingency Fees: A Reply to Professor Brickman

Abstract:     
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 fees

Accepted Paper Series