Study Paper on Financing Litigation

British Columbia Law Institute
{"title":"Study Paper on Financing Litigation","authors":"British Columbia Law Institute","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3067055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Access to the justice system is becoming increasingly difficult for many Canadians. The cost of litigation is an important factor that can determine how much and how often people can pay a lawyer for legal advice and representation. While some disputes can be resolved outside the courtroom, litigation is often the only means to achieve an equitable result. Commencing and participating in the litigation process is expensive and many people lack the financial resources to take on the full cost of bringing their matter to court. This can lead to potentially meritorious cases being barred from access to a just resolution. This study paper examines the traditional and alternative methods litigants use to pay for litigation. It reviews five financing models that have emerged both in Canada and internationally: 1) unbundled legal services, 2) third-party litigation funding, 3) alternative fee arrangements, 4) crowdfunding, 5) legal expense insurance, and 6) publicly funded litigation funds. The paper identifies 18 opportunities and ideas to consider for structural, systemic or legal change in order to enhance the use of each financing option in British Columbia. It also briefly discusses five alternative ideas that could mitigate the rising cost of legal services, and improve access to justice generally.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3067055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Access to the justice system is becoming increasingly difficult for many Canadians. The cost of litigation is an important factor that can determine how much and how often people can pay a lawyer for legal advice and representation. While some disputes can be resolved outside the courtroom, litigation is often the only means to achieve an equitable result. Commencing and participating in the litigation process is expensive and many people lack the financial resources to take on the full cost of bringing their matter to court. This can lead to potentially meritorious cases being barred from access to a just resolution. This study paper examines the traditional and alternative methods litigants use to pay for litigation. It reviews five financing models that have emerged both in Canada and internationally: 1) unbundled legal services, 2) third-party litigation funding, 3) alternative fee arrangements, 4) crowdfunding, 5) legal expense insurance, and 6) publicly funded litigation funds. The paper identifies 18 opportunities and ideas to consider for structural, systemic or legal change in order to enhance the use of each financing option in British Columbia. It also briefly discusses five alternative ideas that could mitigate the rising cost of legal services, and improve access to justice generally.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
诉讼融资研究报告
对许多加拿大人来说,诉诸司法系统变得越来越困难。诉讼费用是一个重要因素,它可以决定人们向律师支付法律咨询和代理费用的多少和频率。虽然有些纠纷可以在法庭外解决,但诉讼往往是获得公平结果的唯一手段。开始和参与诉讼过程是昂贵的,许多人缺乏财政资源来承担将他们的事情告上法庭的全部费用。这可能导致可能有价值的案件无法获得公正的解决。本研究报告探讨了传统的和替代的方法诉讼当事人使用支付诉讼。它回顾了在加拿大和国际上出现的五种融资模式:1)非捆绑法律服务,2)第三方诉讼融资,3)替代费用安排,4)众筹,5)法律费用保险,6)公共资助诉讼基金。为了提高不列颠哥伦比亚省每种融资选择的使用,本文确定了18个可以考虑进行结构、系统或法律变革的机会和想法。本报告还简要讨论了可以减轻法律服务费用上升的五种备选办法,并普遍改善诉诸司法的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lessons from India’s Struggles with Corporate Purpose Study Paper on Financing Litigation Chinese and Japanese Perspectives on UN Sanctions Global Governance of Antitrust and the Need for a BRICS Joint Research Platform in Competition Law and Policy The Evolution of Foreign Investment Regulation, Treaties and Investor-State Arbitration in Australia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1