- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:13 pm
#36734
Complete Passage Discussion
In this passage, the author introduces the concept of the legal services plan, discusses perspectives from
both sides of the issue, and assesses the plan as unlikely to be beneficial to any of the parties involved.
Paragraph 1 Overview
In the first paragraph of this stimulus, the author introduces the concept of the pre-paid legal service
plan, and the example of the plan used by The Canadian Auto Workers (CAW). There are several
important elements that define the plan:
1. Members receive pre-paid or partially reimbursed legal services.
2. Plan staff lawyers are fully covered by the plan.
3. Members can use outside lawyers, who may or may not charge an additional fee.
The plan has operated since 1985, and as of 1988 included 45 percent of eligible CAW members, so it
seems there has been a good response to the plan in the short term.
Paragraph 2 Overview
The second paragraph provides various arguments for and against the CAW plan, without taking a
position on either side of the argument. The first half of the paragraph is devoted to lawyers’ arguments
against the plan, and the second half to the directors’ arguments for the plan. We should be sure to note
these opposing viewpoints, a very common theme among LSAT passages.
The lawyers are concerned that the plan tends to depress legal fees; although most lawyers in CAW cities have not joined the plan, legal fees in those cities have dropped, in some cases to an unprofitable
level. The plan’s directors argue that clients benefit from reduced prices, and that lawyers benefit from
increased business. The directors claim that if lawyers give excellent service, clients refer others who
will pay the standard rate.
We might notice that the lawyers’ arguments are based on evidence, while the directors’ arguments are
based on claims which are a bit more speculative.
Paragraph 3 Overview
The third paragraph begins with the author’s evaluation, that pre-paid legal service plans in general will
probably fail to benefit both lawyers and clients. We should note that this first sentence provides a strong
statement of the author’s main idea. The author lists the following arguments against these plans:
1. Established lawyers generally have plenty of clients, so this sort of plan would likely become a
marketing device for less established lawyers, who tend to have less expertise and offer less client
satisfaction.
2. Although lawyers can potentially get full-fee referrals, it is not clear that those referrals make up for
providing plan services at the lower rates.
3. The lower fees brought in by Plan cases are likely to lead to less time spent on them by assigned
lawyers, and lower quality overall.
Passage Summary
The author’s main point is that pre-paid legal service plans, in the long-term, will probably fail to benefit
both lawyers and clients. The author’s attitude, therefore, is negative with respect to predictions for the
long-term ramifications of adopting these plans.
The structure of the passage is as follows:
In this passage, the author introduces the concept of the legal services plan, discusses perspectives from
both sides of the issue, and assesses the plan as unlikely to be beneficial to any of the parties involved.
Paragraph 1 Overview
In the first paragraph of this stimulus, the author introduces the concept of the pre-paid legal service
plan, and the example of the plan used by The Canadian Auto Workers (CAW). There are several
important elements that define the plan:
1. Members receive pre-paid or partially reimbursed legal services.
2. Plan staff lawyers are fully covered by the plan.
3. Members can use outside lawyers, who may or may not charge an additional fee.
The plan has operated since 1985, and as of 1988 included 45 percent of eligible CAW members, so it
seems there has been a good response to the plan in the short term.
Paragraph 2 Overview
The second paragraph provides various arguments for and against the CAW plan, without taking a
position on either side of the argument. The first half of the paragraph is devoted to lawyers’ arguments
against the plan, and the second half to the directors’ arguments for the plan. We should be sure to note
these opposing viewpoints, a very common theme among LSAT passages.
The lawyers are concerned that the plan tends to depress legal fees; although most lawyers in CAW cities have not joined the plan, legal fees in those cities have dropped, in some cases to an unprofitable
level. The plan’s directors argue that clients benefit from reduced prices, and that lawyers benefit from
increased business. The directors claim that if lawyers give excellent service, clients refer others who
will pay the standard rate.
We might notice that the lawyers’ arguments are based on evidence, while the directors’ arguments are
based on claims which are a bit more speculative.
Paragraph 3 Overview
The third paragraph begins with the author’s evaluation, that pre-paid legal service plans in general will
probably fail to benefit both lawyers and clients. We should note that this first sentence provides a strong
statement of the author’s main idea. The author lists the following arguments against these plans:
1. Established lawyers generally have plenty of clients, so this sort of plan would likely become a
marketing device for less established lawyers, who tend to have less expertise and offer less client
satisfaction.
2. Although lawyers can potentially get full-fee referrals, it is not clear that those referrals make up for
providing plan services at the lower rates.
3. The lower fees brought in by Plan cases are likely to lead to less time spent on them by assigned
lawyers, and lower quality overall.
Passage Summary
The author’s main point is that pre-paid legal service plans, in the long-term, will probably fail to benefit
both lawyers and clients. The author’s attitude, therefore, is negative with respect to predictions for the
long-term ramifications of adopting these plans.
The structure of the passage is as follows:
- Paragraph 1: Introduce one example of a pre-paid legal service plan
Paragraph 2: Present arguments for and against this type of plan
Paragraph 3: Assess these plans as unlikely to be beneficial, listing several
specific reasons for this assertion.