to be at the expense of the latter. B. Enhancement of the Lodestar. The district court applied a fifty percent multiplier to a portion of the attor neys’ hours. Judge Pieras gave two reasons. First, he cited the quality of service (extremely high) and the degree of success (very great). Second, he found that the lawyers’ fees were contingent on success and that the aleatory nature of the engagement warranted an enhancement to compensate for the risk of nonpayment. We approach this phase of our inquiry mindful that determining whether a particular type of enhancement to a lodestar is legally viable involves mainly a question of law. Thus, appellate review of such determinations is plenary. See, e.g., Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 972 F.2d 453, 457 (1st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Brewer v. Madigan, 945 F.2d 449, 452 (1st
holding that claimed errors of law are subject to plenary review holding that instructional errors that are trial errors are subject to harmless error analysis holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis holding claimed errors waived for failure to timely object holding that a district courts determination of its jurisdiction to resentence a defendant is subject to plenary review