Abstract

https://ssrn.com/abstract=907864
 
 

Footnotes (141)



 


 



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

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


Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: June 14, 2006  

Suggested Citation

Kritzer, Herbert M., Advocacy and Rhetoric vs. Scholarship and Evidence in the Debate over Contingency Fees: A Reply to Professor Brickman. Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol. 82, pp. 477-507, 2004. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=907864

Contact Information

Herbert M. Kritzer (Contact Author)
University of Minnesota Law School ( email )
229 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
United States

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 730
Downloads: 81
Download Rank: 243,039
Footnotes:  141