31 Pages Posted: 14 Jun 2006
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.
Keywords: Contingency fee, contingent fee, plaintiffs lawyers, tort, lawyer fees
Suggested Citation: 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