Publication Date
2-2015
Journal
William & Mary Law Review
Abstract
Litigation investment, sometimes known as litigation finance, is increasingly accepted around the world. Once prohibited as champerty, litigation investment is now embraced in England, Canada, and Australia, as well as in many civil law nations. In the United States, the development of a robust market for investment in litigation has been met by various objections. One objection is that litigation investment interferes with the autonomy of lawyers. A second objection is that it promotes frivolous litigation.
This Article takes up a popular argument against litigation investment: the legal system should not encourage parties to sell their control over litigation that would vindicate their rights. This criticism is based on an unspoken assumption that private law theory requires party control to stay with the original rightholder and contracts that allow the sale of party control to a stranger should be struck down, either for being contrary to public policy or for some other legal basis.
Volume
56
Issue
3
First Page
833
Last Page
898
Publisher
William & Mary Law School
Disciplines
Banking and Finance Law | Insurance Law | Law | State and Local Government Law | Torts
Recommended Citation
Anthony J. Sebok,
Should the Law Preserve Party Control? Litigation Investment, Insurance Law, and Double Standards,
56
Wm. & Mary L. Rev.
833
(2015).
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/1503
Included in
Banking and Finance Law Commons, Insurance Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Torts Commons