|
||||
|
||||
Alternative Litigation Finance and the Work-Product DoctrineGrace M. GieselUniversity of Louisville - Louis D. Brandeis School of Law 2012 Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 47, No. 5, 2012 University of Louisville School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series Abstract: The United States judicial system is in the midst of great and fundamental change with regard to the funding of litigation. Historically, parties financed litigation out of their own literal or figurative pockets or, perhaps with the assistance of some sort of contingent fee representation. Third-party financing of litigation was frowned upon, if not specifically forbidden. But, now, third-party litigation funding entities have begun, with much more frequency and success, to provide funding for small matters such as individual personal injury claims as well as larger commercial litigation matters between businesses. The demand for this alternative litigation finance ("ALF") clearly exists, and the supply of funding has developed despite historical obstacles. Doctrines such as champerty have faded somewhat form the legal landscape, and old fears of having litigation funded and controlled by evil actors equal to the worst villain in any Dickens novel have receded in light of the notion that everyone deserves access to justice regardless of bank account balance.
Keywords: alternative litigation finance, ALF, litigation, personal injury, commercial litigation JEL Classification: K41 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: February 20, 2013Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
|||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.281 seconds