h a l f b a k e r yThe Out-of-Focus Group.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Many plaintiffs suing to collect damages have to hire lawyers
on
a contingency basis; the latter only get paid if they win
the case. But many defendants being sued, including for cases
of financial fraud and victimization, get to hire lawyers using
any money they happen to have at the moment,
even if
whether
some of that money is ill-gotten and really belongs to
someone
else is precisely what is at issue. So judges should be able to
either put such payments on hold, or require tracking of any
such monies paid, if there is a significant concern of such
abuse.
If the defendant wins, fine--the lawyers get paid. If not, they
don't, or have to refund some of what they were paid
(perhaps
anything above some modest base amount).
I got this idea after hearing about all of R. Kelly's past &
continuing expenses defending himself against sexual assault
charges, money which could and should have gone to his
victims.
Litigation Funding
https://www.ashurst...litigation-funding/
[calum, Sep 30 2021]
[link]
|
| |
I despise lawyers. I'd bun this twice if I could. |
|
| |
My cousin is a good lawyer, she's the corporate type, nothing
wrong with contract law. |
|
| |
She's the only good lawyer though. |
|
| |
//Many plaintiffs suing to collect damages have to hire
lawyers on a contingency basis; defense counsel only gets
paid if they win the case.//
This is not the case in every
jurisdiction and there are a range of ways to fund litigation
that extend beyond no-win, no-fee. Link for a reasonable
summary of the civil litigation funding options in England
and Wales. |
|
| |
I am not 100% clear on the idea, though: is the proposal that
lawyers for rich defendants should have a court mandated
reduction in their fees if they lose, so that there is more
money to be awarded in damages to the person who raised
the action? |
|
| |
//She's the only good lawyer// |
|
| |
I have a friend who used to specialise in insolvency law. He
once explained to me, regretfully, how, for lawyers, good
people
make bad clients and bad people make good clients. This is
because good people only call a lawyer when they're in a
desperate situation, whereas bad people game the system
habitually, and they can pay because they're the ones
stealing
the money. |
|
| |
So I think I understand the motivation for the idea - to
make
representing bad people at least as risky as representing
good
people. |
|
| |
And notwithstanding [Calum]'s point about jurisdictional
variation, [+]. |
|
| |
Calum, yes that is what I meant. I misphrased the first
sentence, which you quoted, and just fixed it. And I would
only have this apply to cases where the origin (or destination)
of the money is
at issue, not to all cases involving rich defendants. |
|
| |