While in theory, I agree that this could really give underdogs a way to crowd-fund against well funded adversaries, I think in practice, the added obstacle of needing to organize will always give singular entities that are already wealthy the upper hand to jump in with large sums of money and turn the tables. This is exactly what has happened with the Citizens United ruling. In theory, it gives everyone equal chance, but that's assuming that wealth and prosperity and the ability or organize is equal amongst all interested parties. And that is turning out to be very far from the truth.
Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?
31–40 of 107 posts
Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?
#32Let's call this 'crowdsuiting'.
Oh, wait: somebody has
http://crowdsuit.com/
Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?
#33Champerty!
Champerty is the (largely defunct) rule against funding someone else's lawsuit. I always thought that was a funny word. Champerty. But TIL that it comes from the fact that in "England, litigants could hire ‘champions’ to represent them in ‘trial by battle.’ By the late 13th century, these strongmen were being compared to prostitutes, and their prevalence hastened the movement of dispute resolution to the courtroom. During the Middle Ages, this concept of ‘champerty’ — assisting another person’s lawsuit in exchange for a share of the proceeds — emerged as part of the larger ecclesiastical taboo against usury."
Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?
#34If I remember correctly, Makers by Cory Doctorow had this as a big plot element
Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?
#35I think it's perfectly fine to invest in civil lawsuits for a stake in the settlement/awarded money (haven't thought about criminal law but it's probably fine as well). You can invest in insurances which isn't much different from my POV.
For big collective bargaining trials you can already invest in the outcome without the money going towards moving towards the outcome (short/long the company who is bieng sued)
Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't such behavior be considered unethical and possibly grounds for disbarment? After all, that's definitely not in the interests of the client.
You'd think but there are issues like this today and it's difficult to prove depending on the circumstances (at least prove to the point where they can get in trouble with the bar). Anecdotally when my father was going through his divorce his lawyer told him not to take the settlement with his now ex-wife and his lawyer promised she could get him better terms and an expedited divorce and would only need to go to one…
I know of one long running case concerning pensions (British Telecom Section A) that was dragged out for well over a decade - as the longer it went on more pensioners would have died so reducing the cost.
Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?
#37I find it already unethical for lawyers to take a percentage of the awarded damages, a practice which is fortunately illegal in many European countries.
Why do you think that's unethical? Doesn't it give lawyers the incentive to fight for their clients? What if a poor client cannot pay upfront and percentage of winnings is what convinces a lawyer to fight in the first place?
Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?
#38I think the concern with investing in lawsuits should be focused on secondary motives. Lawsuits with lots of investors will have attorneys with secondary motives, such as keeping the case active as long as possible to continue to attract more investors, rather than resolve it. Perpetual cases could bog down courts in never-ending lawsuits and countersuit challenges, a legal version of Mutually Assured Destruction. Do…
Sounds like something the free market would solve, no?
Can't believe people still naively think this would work in the light of all the corruption we observe all the time.
Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?
#39I find it already unethical for lawyers to take a percentage of the awarded damages, a practice which is fortunately illegal in many European countries.
Why do you think that's unethical? Doesn't it give lawyers the incentive to fight for their clients? What if a poor client cannot pay upfront and percentage of winnings is what convinces a lawyer to fight in the first place?
Because it gives lawyers a stronger incentive to escalate conflicts, instead of deescalating them, which is not in the interest of society. Lawyering up is a zero-sum game, so the economy is better off if the money in question stays in a productive sector.
Take a divorce, for example. Do you prefer lawyers to have an incentive to say "calm down, I'll talk to the other lawyer, and we will find a fair deal" or "give me 20% and I'll make that bitch suffer"?
Note that a poor client who cannot pay upfront can still agree to pay after they win, just not a percentage of the awarded sum.
Re: Should You Be Allowed to Invest in a Lawsuit?
#40I think the concern with investing in lawsuits should be focused on secondary motives. Lawsuits with lots of investors will have attorneys with secondary motives, such as keeping the case active as long as possible to continue to attract more investors, rather than resolve it. Perpetual cases could bog down courts in never-ending lawsuits and countersuit challenges, a legal version of Mutually Assured Destruction. Do…
Wouldn't such behavior be considered unethical and possibly grounds for disbarment? After all, that's definitely not in the interests of the client.
Was anyone involved in SCO v IBM disbarred?