Comments on: “The dubious business of investing in mass torts”

By: wilbur

wilbur — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 19:47:38 +0000

Gotti would cure any witness appearance issues – for AND against.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:14:33 +0000

Because the real party in interest will now be an entity which has not suffered any harm…it does not seek to redress any legal wrong, nevertheless it will control the plaintiff’s side of the litigation (he who pays the piper, etc.,). And, unlike the client’s attorney, the investor has no interest in maintaining professionalism or collegiality in the proceedings. This will override the attorney.

Imagine , let’s say, Bernie Madoff, or John Gotti, funding your client’s case, thru a shell investor company…sound OK to you?

By: PaulB

PaulB — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 03:02:58 +0000

Timothy, why is this really different than a contingency fee arrangement? If a complex case requires a multi-million dollar investment in order for a plaintiff’s attorney to take it on, why would it be wrong to have an outside investor if the cost required was beyond the ability of even a large law firm to advance with no guarantee of success?

By: Timothy Harris

Timothy Harris — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 01:59:26 +0000

It appears it is past time to bring back the legal prohibition on Champertry – with a limited exception for contingent fee arrangements.

But since Congress consists largely of lawyers, the class who stands to benefit from a free market in encouraging other peoples’ litigation at the expense of the rest of us, it will never happen…

By: Anonymous Attorney

Anonymous Attorney — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 16:38:01 +0000

It’s just disgusting.