Some noise on my timeline about Keira Bell raising further funds to resist the anticipated appeal of the Tavistock to the Court of Appeal. I can't see anything ethically wrong with her conduct vis-a-vis crowdfunding.
It often happens when you succeed in a case for which you have obtained a costs-capping order that the costs you recover from the other side don't cover your liability to your own legal team.
Indeed, depending on the terms on which your legal team have acted, your liability to them might exceed the total of what you recovered from the other side plus what you crowdfunded. So you have to find more money even though you won.
You could advance the minor criticism that she should identify the size of her deficit and only crowdfund for further costs of resisting an appeal if the Tavistock gets permission to bring it. But (as I have written elsewhere) the demands of crowdfunding often compete.
(Probably goes without saying that I continue to be shocked by both the process before and outcome of the Divisional Court hearing. But because the law is a human instrument wielded by an illegitimately homogenous judiciary this stuff will happen from time to time.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
