Editing Champerty and maintenance (section)

{{Short description|Doctrines in common law jurisdictions that aim to preclude frivolous litigation}}
{{Redirect|Champarty|the medieval levy|Champart}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2022}}
'''Champerty and maintenance''' are doctrines in [[common law]] [[jurisdiction]]s that aim to preclude [[frivolous litigation]]: 
*'''Maintenance''' is the intermeddling of a disinterested party to encourage a [[lawsuit]].<ref name="Curzon">{{Cite book| author=Curzon, L. B. | title=Dictionary of Law | edition=6th | publisher=Longman | location=London | isbn=0-582-43809-8 | year=2002 }}</ref>{{rp|260}} It is: "A taking in hand, a bearing up or upholding of quarrels or sides, to the disturbance of the common right."<ref>[[Edward Coke|Coke]] (1641) ''Institutes''</ref> 
*'''Champerty''' (from [[Old French]] ''[[champart]]'') is the financial support, by a party not naturally concerned in the suit, of a plaintiff that allows them to prosecute a lawsuit on condition that, if it be brought to a successful issue, the plaintiff will repay them with a share of the proceed from the suit.<ref>{{cite web |title=Oxford English Dictionary |url=https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/30398 |website=oed.com |publisher=Oxford University Press |access-date=14 January 2021 |language=English}}</ref>

In ''Giles v Thompson''<ref>{{Cite BAILII|litigants=Giles v Thompson|parallelcite=[1993] 3 All ER 321|court=UKHL|num=2|year=1993|date=26 May 1993}}</ref> [[Johan Steyn, Baron Steyn|Lord Justice Steyn]] declared: "In modern idiom maintenance is the support of litigation by a stranger without just cause. Champerty is an aggravated form of maintenance. The distinguishing feature of champerty is the support of litigation by a stranger in return for a share of the proceeds."

At common law, maintenance and champerty were both [[crime]]s and [[tort]]s, as was [[Barratry (common law)|barratry]] (the bringing of [[vexatious litigation]]). This is generally no longer so<ref>Abolished by Part II of the [[Criminal Law Act 1967]], except as regards [[embracery]], abolished by section 17 of the [[Bribery Act 2010]].</ref> as, during the nineteenth century, the development of [[legal ethics]] tended to obviate the risks to the public, particularly after the scandal of the [[Swynfen will case]] (1856–1864).<ref>{{Cite journal| title=Moral panic at the English Bar: Paternal vs. commercial ideologies of legal practice in the 1860s | author=Pue, W. W. | journal=Law and Social Inquiry | volume=15 | year=1990 | pages=49–118 | doi=10.1111/j.1747-4469.1990.tb00275.x | issue=1| s2cid=145788677 }}</ref> However, the principles are relevant to modern [[contingent fee]] agreements between a [[lawyer]] and a client and to the [[Assignment (law)|assignment]] by a [[plaintiff]] of his rights in a lawsuit to someone with no connection to the case. Champertous contracts, such as third-party litigation funding agreements, can still, depending on jurisdiction, be [[void (law)|void]] for [[Public policy (law)|public policy]] or attract [[legal liability|liability]] for [[Costs (law)|costs]].