4 ms·
Funding lawsuits for profit is a well-known society anti-pattern called "champerty." It is no longer illegal (as blocking it interfered with access to justice)
by jmount 10y ago
Funding lawsuits for profit is a well-known society anti-pattern called "champerty." It is no longer illegal (as blocking it interfered with access to justice) but when used for profit or other agendas it is pretty damaging (think patent trolls).
- thrill 10y agoIt's only a good thing when it's done with an agenda you agree with and not when it's equally available to others?
- jmount 10y agoI wasn't precise. Sorry about that. By "other agendas" I meant any issue not claimed in the lawsuit at hand, not agendas that differed from my own. It is a bit of a subjective point as one could have a legitimate interest in funding somebody who has been harmed in the same way you have in a different event (so you would not have standing, but at least a related agenda). But funding a suit you have no real interest in just "for the win" is a bit wild.
- bmh_ca 10y agoA key issue related to champerty is barratry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)), being: "overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation" or who bring "repeated or persistent acts of litigation" for the purposes of profit or harassment. Champerty (the funding of the litigation of others) is a problem in no small part because it allows the wealthy to engage in barratry (frivolous or vexatious litigation).
- Grue3 10y agoIt's not an anti-pattern if it allows poor to sue the rich.
- jptman 10y agoIt's an anti pattern when it's used in a way that wasn't originally intended and causes a net loss for society. E.g, class action lawsuit against small manufacturing companies. These can cost more to fight than to pay off, even when you are in the right.