The New York Times covers the burgeoning business of lawsuit finance, profiling Juridica Capital Management and other new ventures that purchase stakes in the outcome of litigation (mostly commercial litigation, it seems) -- a practice long illegal at common law, before recent ethical loosenings. This innovation will, of course, encourage the filing of more litigation, and Prof. Sebok is quoted as being pleased with that: there'll be "funding available for cases that are good cases, cases that from a God's-eye point of view, so to speak, should've been brought". Don't you love that "God's-eye" wording, with its premise that God wants us to bring lawsuits when we have legal grounds to do so, and is disappointed when we instead decide to forgive, or shy away from the process for fear of hurting someone, or just want to get on with our lives? [see below for correction]
P.S. From Eric Turkewitz in email: "This is a phrase that I've also used. But it doesn't have the meaning you have given it, of what God wants to do. Rather, it is a view of the facts as they actually happened, as opposed to the way facts sometimes get spun by advocates for one side or the other." More: Ted at Overlawyered (including a response from Richard Fields of Juridica in comments), Larry Ribstein (disinclined to regulate the funds), and Jim Copland, above. And (update) Prof. Sebok himself writes to advise that he intended the "God's-eye" phrase in the uncontroversial sense described by Eric Turkewitz above, thus leaving my reaction above as a case of misplaced snark. Sorry.