61–70 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't believe people still naively think this would work in the light of all the corruption we observe all the time.
Corruption is, by definition, bribing government officials for personal gain. Therefore corruption can only exist in the areas that are not fully free, but are regulated by a government.
Corruption by definition is not bribing government officials. Show me that definition? Corruption by definition is actually fraudulent activity by those in power, where government is one entity that has power. Removing government to remove corruption is quite frankly insane and only makes sense if you change the definition of corruption to mean "government corruption".
I 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…
Lawsuit financing is a speculative investment. We've seen repeatedly that the more money there is to invest speculatively, the more people and companies start pushing the envelope to attract investment.
In the last 20 years we've seen big bubbles in Internet services and consumer mortgages. What would be the effect of a bubble in lawsuits? Aside from the financial harm, it might crowd out or delay more worthy court cases.
Champerty! 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 c…
a taboo against usury - pity it didn't last...
Yes of course you should. This is no different than a lawyer taking a case on contingency. It provides people without the means to hire a legal team a way to take on more well-financed opponents. While abuse of the legal system is certainly a problem, the way to solve it is not limit financing. That only increases economic inequality. It's like saying we can solve the SF housing crisis by banning mortgages.
The abuse of the legal system is, from my perspective, extremely tied to the fiscal means of the involved parties. I say this having been called to potentially be on a jury involving a claim of breach of confidentiality over a Rothko painting, asking for more than $30 million (eventually the jury verdict was a pyrrhic victory of $500,000 - likely the cost of the suit in the first place).
I guess what I'm saying is that for small-time folks, even judgments in small-claims court are tenuous in enforcement, because...well...there's not enough money involved for authorities and other entities to follow through. To me that's a distortion of the purpose of the legal system, and one where money certainly plays a role. Rather, economic inequality may result in justice inequality (a study of this would be very helpful).
Consider that many civil legal disagreements end in a settlement because one or both of the parties cannot afford the time and the stress of a legal battle. In that case a third party who pledges support to either of them might easily influence the settlement agreement. Consider this very realistic scenario: Two parties jointly own a piece of real estate. One of the parties wants to sell the property but the other pa…
> the other guy is forced to sell (to the property developer obviously) at below market value. Why is he forced to sell at below market value? I'm not experienced at joint ownership of real estate, but I would assume that if you own real estate jointly with other partners, and the result of the lawsuit is that you're required to sell, then you can put the property on the market and fetch the current market price from…
A sale will always fetch the current market value (pretty much by definition), but market value fluctuates. Sometimes just the difference between selling in January vs. May can make a difference in the final price.
I 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…
Plaintiffs have zero interest in lengthening cases and neither do litigation funders. Litigation funders are paying the attorney's fees and ending the case more quickly reduces how much they have to invest. Reaching a resolution quickly also reduces how long they have to wait to get a recovery.
https://www.inforuptcy.com/marketplace?f[0]=im_taxonomy_vid_...
I 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…
If the client wants to manage the relationship with investors, set expectations for success, returns, etc...that's one thing. But the lawyer is an advocate for the client, and that relationship is compromised the moment s/he begins feeling pressure from the investors.
Yes of course you should. This is no different than a lawyer taking a case on contingency. It provides people without the means to hire a legal team a way to take on more well-financed opponents. While abuse of the legal system is certainly a problem, the way to solve it is not limit financing. That only increases economic inequality. It's like saying we can solve the SF housing crisis by banning mortgages.
I'm not entirely certain why, but the logic you employ here strikes me as very similar to the justifications used to support the Citizens United ruling. The abuse of the legal system is, from my perspective, extremely tied to the fiscal means of the involved parties. I say this having been called to potentially be on a jury involving a claim of breach of confidentiality over a Rothko painting, asking for more than $3…
I'm not certain why, either, seeing as how Citizens United was about core political speech, Federal government censorship of a video about a candidate for federal office, which if the First Amendment, specifically:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
Means anything, it means such speech cannot be abridged.