The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to agree that the lawyer will be paid only in the event of success, does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors. As attorneys must cover the costs for their time and research, they want to be assured that any medical malpractice case they accept on a contingency-fee basis has substantial merit. Consequently, attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case.
The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to
specify the criteria attorneys use to judge the merits of a medical malpractice case
consider whether, in the absence of a contingency-fee option, even people with meritorious cases are much less likely to initiate litigation if they believe they might incur large legal fees
note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise
consider the effect of the contingency-fee system on the number of lawsuits sought for reasons other than medical malpractice
acknowledge the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance
逻辑链:胜诉制度启用后律师拒绝了胜诉概率低的案子——诉讼量并没有增加,然后B:在没有胜诉制度是,即使胜诉率很高,人们也因为要支付高额的诉讼费而不太可能去起诉。这个条件: 如果肯定,那就提出了他因:是因为人们要支付高额诉讼费所以不愿意起诉导致诉讼量没有增加,而不是律师拒绝了胜诉率高的案子;D:在成功的案子中,胜诉制度下最终收到的赔偿钱会比没有胜诉制度下的要少:然而这个条件并不能直接削弱逻辑链,并不能脑补出由于赔偿款高低就会对诉讼量产生多少影响,不知道其和逻辑链的具体联系
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论