Dear Jonathan:  Let me make sure I’m getting this right:  At your weblog, a month ago, you said this about me: 

” I guess he is either too old to come to terms with anything other than the hourly fee, too lazy to analyze the contingency fee in context, or too afraid of being left behind by the times.”

Then, on March 27, using some of the worst legal analysis by a lawyer that I’ve ever seen, you suggest that it is I who have given a deceptive interpretation of ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 94-394.
And, on April 15, you call my analysis of the ethics and economics of standard contingency fees “crap” and “hateful,” and add the asinine question. “By the way, how ethical is it to go by multiple names?”– because  I use pseudonyms at my weblog to denote very different roles played there by its one and only, very nonymous Editor. 
All along, you fail to link to any of my relevant materials, while making virtually no ethical argument in reply (except “we all do it” and “you don’t get it”).
Now, you act scandalized that I advise you that you’ll soon be seen as a twerp among lawyers, if you don’t stop making such presentations.  And, you malign my law school. Plus, you suggest that I haven’t presented any substantive response to your drivel.  Seems to me you may just be fulfilling my prophecy about your new nickname.
Even if I had the time and energy, I would not accept your harebrained “challenge.”  As you have pointed out, I have little p/i experience.  My ethics argument is that anyone holding himself or herself out as a competent and experienced p/i lawyer, using contingency fee arrangements, can and must make an adequate risk assessment of each individual case and offer a percentage fee that is commensurate.

p.s.  Jonathan, in your April 15th post, you also said: “Interestingly, I notice that no one is telling divorce attorneys that their $10,000 retainers are pricing low and middle income people out of the market for legal services. No one is complaining that business formation attorneys are charging four hundred dollars per hour or more and their fees are stifling the creation of new small businesses for low and middle income folks. No one is talking about how renters cannot afford legal representation when they are being evicted ”
I don’t know who the “no one”s are to whom you refer.  Spend a little time looking through the ethicalEsq Archives, and you’ll discover a lot of commentary by myself dealing with the issues you raised.  For instance, see the Access/Self-Help/Pro Se Page, the Unauthorized Practice Page, and the Fees Page.  As a lawyer who left antitrust and struggled to build a divorce mediation practice in a region that never had one — precisely to give clients a far-cheaper and less stressful option to traditional divorce-lawyering — I find it amusing that those comments of yours appear to be addressed to me.  See my discussion in Internet Lawsites Encounter the Profession’s Guild Mentality.  Also, the post  UK Dads Angrily Protest Divorce Lawyers, where I stated:  As a Law Guardian [that's at $25 or $40 an hour, Jonathan, in the 1990's] representing children and as a divorce mediator [charging $90 per hour], I have seen far too many instances of divorce lawyers needlessly fomenting anger and prolonging proceedings, to the detriment of the own clients, the opposing party and, especially, the children.  As lawyer-mediator Leonard Marlow has pointed out in Divorce and the Myth of Lawyers and The Two Roads to Divorce, the only winners are the lawyers.

You have resorted to name-calling? That is what they taught you at Harvard. I am damn glad I didn’t go to that law school if that is the best you have.

And the offer still stands. You can go to my blog and tell everyone you will take my challenge. Let’s see once and for all who is right with an experiment. Are you and your system up for it?