About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

46 Comm. L. World Rev. 3 (2017)

handle is hein.journals/comlwr46 and id is 1 raw text is: Article igf ralr evecw Common Law World Review 2017, Vol 46(l) 3-20 Jostling for a larger piece ofK)TeAtos)21 @ The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permission: the (class) action: litigationsagepub.co.u/journalsPerissions.nav DOl: 10.1177/1473779516677212 funders and e nt repreneurijal ournals.sagepub.com/home/clw lawyers stake their claims SSAGE Roger Gamble Abstract Both third-party litigation funders and plaintiff lawyers have attempted to improve their competitive positions in the class action market. First, in an environment with very little regulation, litigation funders have sought court approval for the introduction of a 'common fund' that would dramatically tilt the cost-benefit calculus in favour of the funder, providing them with far greater certainty about the risks involved in funding a particular action. Second, entrepreneurial lawyers have tested some questionable strategies designed to circumvent the prohibition on lawyers charging contingency fees. To date, neither has succeeded but their efforts have prompted discussion about the way class action litigation should be funded, who should be allowed to fund it and the need for greater regulation. Keywords common fund, contingency fees, entrepreneurial lawyers, litigation funding Introduction The emergence of third-party litigation finders in class action litigation in Australia over the past decade has been an innovative ifpredictable response to a fundamental problem with the opt-out scheme: how are these notoriously expensive actions to be funded? The irony is clear: opt-out class actions were introduced in 19921 to promote access to justice, allowing groups of people to obtain redress and do so more cheaply and efficiently than under the existing arrangements.2 The root of the funding problem can be traced to three key policy decisions that were made when the scheme was enacted: (a) adopting the cost-shifting 'loser-pays' rule (b) ruling out a Department of Business Law and Taxation, Monash University, Clayton, Australia Corresponding author: Roger Gamble, Monash University, Wellington Rd & Blackburn Rd, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia. Email: roger.gamble@monash.edu

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most