I think there are issues here. You can make your own mind up on the details but I have two main worries (not necessarily about this case - which I haven’t yet read - but more generally).
https://twitter.com/barbararich_law/status/1493558241741135881
1. There is a tendency on both sides of the debate on the so-called (ab)use of judicial review for political ends to exaggerate what JR can actually do.
That lies behind some of the sillier stuff coming out of the so-called Judicial Power Project, exaggerating “judicial power”.
It has its mirror image in a belief that JR can sort out major problems in our politics. It can’t. And it shouldn’t. That job is for us/our MPs.
JR is like the plumbing in a building and lawyers are like plumbers. It and we can stop (most) leaks and keep water flowing. And it’s an important job. But if you want a new building, or are worried the walls are falling down, you need a builder or an architect, not a plumber.
2. There is a particular worry about crowd-funded litigation. It’s a good and important thing, as it enables important cases to be brought to test the law and where no individual or business can or is prepared to take the risk.
But it does require complete straightforwardness about chances of success and about what has actually happened.
I am not making any judgment about this case (I haven’t read it). And GLP has in my experience been pretty good on those fronts (perfection is not to be expected). But some others aren’t so good. And the model has inherent risks.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
