Litigation Finance, Crowdfunding, and Public Interest Lawsuits
A British venture provides a method for crowd-sourcing litigation funding, which permits individuals to provide funding to support cases they care about. The company is CrowdJustice, and it offers another illustration of how litigation finance can promote justice. In addition, its effectiveness demonstrates why it is a bad idea to restrict innovation in litigation funding.
According to its founder and CEO, Julia Salasky, CrowdJustice began with the recognition that many people with valid legal claims simply could not get access to the justice system, notwithstanding government programs providing legal aid or the efforts of various public interest organizations. Salasky wanted to find an answer to the question “how can people access the law that is friendly, gives funding, and supports their communities?” She concluded that computer technology and the internet could be an important part of that answer.
CrowdJustice uses a software platform through which lawyers, non-profit or plaintiffs can submit information about their case. CrowdJustice vets the information to assure that the case is real and that it is supported by a legitimate non-profit or a licensed attorney. After the case is approved for funding, the attorney determines a target amount to be raised. Then individuals can use the platform to get information about the case and contribute towards the target amount. The contributions go into a trust account, and, once the total value of pledges reaches the target amount, the funds go directly to the lawyer who represents the client in the case. If the target is not reached, the funds are returned to the contributors.
The venture takes a non-partisan approach to public interest, supporting cases from across the political spectrum. CrowdJustice’s objective is to promote engagement with the legal system, not to advocate a particular political viewpoint. As Salasky puts it, “[i]t excites us to provide a new way for people to engage with the law. The courts are, for better or worse, an important part of the political system of any country. And really, supporting cases is a powerful way to de-politicize an issue, because it frames issues in front of a neutral arbiter.”
For centuries, the legal system has been premised on the idea that litigants must support their own cases without using the resources of any third parties. This presumption persisted even in cases of great social or political significance. CrowdJustice shows how departing from this presumption can create a better justice system and better communities.
Topics: litigation finance, legal reform, third-party funding, litigation costs, public interest law, crowdfunding
Works Cited:
Ed Sohn, alt.legal: If Money is Speech, Then Crowdfund Your Favorite Public Interest Lawsuit, Above the Law (Mar. 29, 2017) available at http://abovethelaw.com/2017/03/alt-legal-if-money-is-speech-then-crowdfund-your-favorite-public-interest-lawsuit/?rf=1
