h a l f b a k e r yThe embarrassing drunkard uncle of invention.
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
How many times have you heard in the news about a defendant winning a case simply because he could afford a "dream team" of lawyers or a plantiff who had no choice but to back down because he could no longer afford the legal bills.
If you've got a good case, why not sell shares and generate the proper
funding to ensure justice is served. Then split the earnings with the shareholders.
SLAPP
http://en.wikipedia...ublic_participation
[calum, Nov 24 2005]
Baked!
http://www.vanityfa...t-on-other-lawsuits
[calum, Aug 25 2016]
[link]
|
| |
I happen to know someone whose profession, until recently, was funding court cases. (He was forced out by increased competition by the "big boys.") |
|
| |
So I guess you could quite conceivably sell shares, too. |
|
| |
Ick. The major demerit of this idea is that, while it identifies a real problem, rather than attacking the cause(s) of the problem, it seeks to cure the symptoms. America should just lance the boil of punitive damages and be done with it. |
|
| |
Other demerits include:
- the individual seeking to fund "top quality" representation will be required to 'pitch' his case to potential investors, who will sit in entirely unqualified judgement.
- in the setting up of the (quasi-)corporate form that will be required if the individual is to sell "shares" the advice of corporate lawyers will be required. By and large, corporate lawyers cost more than litigation lawyers (though corporate litigators cost the most).
- to be able to pitch his or her case, the individual will almost always require legal representation, which will lead to increased costs, irrespective of whether the funding drive is successful. Further, unless a funding advisor lawyer-caste emerges, it will not be in the interests of the original lawyer to aid the individual in the search for different representation as he will lose his client.
- if the market dictates the pitch-services sector, then some practitioners will be able to charge more for their "better" service. This creates an additional financial hoop for the potential litigant to jump through, probably at significant cost.
- the individual will only be able to acquire funding if the anticipated reward is sufficient. This will have the effect of increasing the amount of (punitive) damages sought and, potentially, awarded.
- the more advice the client has to take to get representation, the more the representation will take of the final award. If the client loses, then they end up with the accounting firms crawling all over them, winding up their investment vehicle. |
|
| |
Welcome to the 'bakery, [vector]! |
|
| |
I guess my idea is that there are investors out there with deep pockets who already have financial and legal advisors to help assess risk. If they like the "rewards vs risk" of the potential case, they could partner up with the plaintiff. |
|
| |
Only if they feel the need to raise additional funds or simply want to share more of the risk, they can sort-of "go public" and sell more shares. |
|
| |
If an inventor with a good idea can drum up financial backing, why can't a plaintiff with a good case? |
|
| |
Because the purpose of the court system is the administration of justice. If an individual or organisation wants to make financial gain on someone else's court case, they should find themselves an accommodating bookmaker. |
|
| |
I am not against your proposal because I am content with the status quo, I am against your proposal because, as I said in my previous anno, it seeks to treat the symptoms of the problem, rather than the cause. |
|
| |
One of the principal flaws with lawyers today is that, as they get a cut of any winnings, they can, and often do, put pressure on their client to settle a case for less money, so that they get a definite pay off. By introducing others with a financial motive into the equation, more pressure will be put on claimants to settle perfectly good cases. |
|
| |
It's an interesting idea though, so I will remain neutral on it. |
|
| |
// One of the principal flaws with lawyers today // |
|
| |
... is that they're all invariably liars, cheats and poisonous scumbags, nothing more than pusillanimous parasitic vermin who infect the air they breathe and take up perfectly good oxygen that could much better go to a child molester, or some other more honourable trade. |
|
| |
They and all their kind must be cleansed from the world immediately, by Fire and the Sword. Spare not even the children, lest the evil persist. |
|
| |
Interesting, you did this before "Makers" by Cory Doctorow in 2009. Try getting a percentage of the royalties. |
|
| |
// Spare not even the children, lest the evil persist. // |
|
| |
I think your services are needed in Detroit. |
|
| |
So this is not an idea to set the price of a given stock based on how it fares at trial? |
|
| |
" Your honor, my client's futures in EpiPen are clearly being stung by recent events " |
|
| |