Hmm. I don't know how the govt will or can regulate legal Crowdfunders (since you can crowd fund for anything on generic sites, or set up your own).
And this is one of those illiberal moves not-to-applaud just because it is getting at someone you don't like
And this is one of those illiberal moves not-to-applaud just because it is getting at someone you don't like
https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1401417740037001216
The ability of the public to bring JRs is important.
And there are permissions hearings and cost orders to deter the vexatious and frivolous.
And there are permissions hearings and cost orders to deter the vexatious and frivolous.
I do think @CrowdJustice has been unwise to flex its own self-regulation for the Good Law Project.
Normally the rules require the "case owner" is the claimant and their lawyers sign off on the case page. But for GLP these constraints and quality control are removed.
Normally the rules require the "case owner" is the claimant and their lawyers sign off on the case page. But for GLP these constraints and quality control are removed.
What if some other organisation wanted to run a case like this (LGBA or FPFW or Sex Matters, say), presumably they would say no: "here are the rules". Does this one-rule-for-you-another-for-him approach opens them up to a discrimination claim?
Or will they start saying yes to other orgs being listed both as claimant and "law firm", thus removing the safeguard that is the USP of the site "by lawyers for legal cases" that it benefits from legal professional ethics and the regulated lawyer-client relationship?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
