With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". over the years to reverse its position, I and my colleagues would not have undertaken this litigation on a contingent fee basis had it been thought that there was any likelihood of a fee being restricted to a small percentage of the amounts recovered. Although I knew that the Court ultimately sets the fee, and that no amount was guaranteed, I was specifically aware in taking the matter on that the usual range of fee awards in common fund cases was 20-30 percent. Additionally, Michael Malakoff, e because other class action attorneys refused to represent Plaintiffs and Adelman had difficulty finding co-counsel. The district court erroneously ignored these facts in concluding that it would not apply a risk multiplier. With respect to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s ho d 562, 583 (3rd Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). We hold that risk should be assessed when an

A: holding that a defendants sentence is controlled by the law in effect at the time he committed the offense
B: holding that risk is measured at the point when the attorneys time was committed to the case
C: holding that risk must be measured at the time the lawsuit is filed
D: recognizing the same point
B.