3 ms·
> I'm not quite sure why where the sources of funding from the people who are suing them are relevant. Because there are legal and ethical restrictions on thir
by objclxt 10y ago
> I'm not quite sure why where the sources of funding from the people who are suing them are relevant.
Because there are legal and ethical restrictions on third parties paying for your legal representation.
When a third party pays for somebody's legal fees there needs to be an understanding that the third party is not in control of the legal team they're paying for. That's because what the third party wants may not necessarily by in the client's best interests.
I am not saying that applies in this case - I'm just pointing out why courts can and do find it on occasion relevant to ask who is funding a case and whether if it is a third party they have made the appropriate arrangements.
- jimmywanger 10y agoThanks for the explanation. I try to steer clear of the law, as the only thing that I do know is that the law doesn't have to make intuitive sense to non-lawyers. But in this particular situation, that sort of due diligence makes sense. If you'll forgive me for a horribly mixed metaphor, this seems like a hail mary pass late in the fourth quarter. I don't think Gawker has much of a chance in any other way, so they're just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks.