This is stated in P1. Members can use the plan’s staff lawyers, but they can also use outside lawyers, allowing them to enjoy benefits beyond the use of the staff lawyers.

This isn’t stated in the passage. The author says that members are happy to have lower fees, but he never addresses what they think of the quality of the staff lawyers.

This isn’t stated in the passage. The author doesn’t mention why the plan members consult lawyers. We don’t know what kind of legal matters members use the plan for.

This is not stated in the passage. P2 tells us that plan members can either use the plan’s staff lawyers or an outside lawyer. Outside lawyers can either sign up as a “cooperating lawyer” at the plan’s rate, or charge a higher fee, which the client pays. So clients might pay a higher fee for an outside lawyer, but it’s not true that they must pay a higher fee, since outside lawyers can choose to be cooperating lawyers.

This isn’t stated in the passage. We know that the CAW plan was designed for active and retired autoworkers and their families, and that many autoworkers have embraced the plan. The author doesn’t address the question of who is allowed to become a member, so we don’t know whether any non-autoworkers are members of the CAW plan.