I guess this is the result of a ‘service’ economy where nothing is made, but people need to make a living somehow.

When Ms. Pont decided to seek a divorce last year, she quickly ran out of money. […] She wrestled with accepting a smaller settlement than she considered fair. Then a lawyer referred her to Balance Point Divorce Funding, a new Beverly Hills lender that offers to cover the cost of breaking up — paying a lawyer, searching for hidden assets, maintaining a lifestyle — in exchange for a share of the winnings.

In October, Balance Point agreed to invest more than $200,000 in Ms. Pont’s case.
[…]
So far, the number of companies investing in divorce is small — Balance Point is one of the few that do it exclusively. But other businesses are gearing up.
[…]
While this business is in its infancy, Balance Point is part of a bigger trend — the growing industry that invests in other people’s lawsuits, arming plaintiffs with money to help them win more money from defendants. Banks, hedge funds and boutique firms like Balance Point now have a total of $1 billion invested in lawsuits at any given time, industry participants estimate.

Lawsuit lenders initially focused on personal injury cases, but over time they have sought new frontiers, including securities fraud cases brought by disgruntled investors, whistleblower claims against corporations and property development disputes.

BTW, apparently, 1 in 5 divorces in the US involve Facebook. Sounds like a marketing opportunity for divorce lawyers.




  1. Counterweight says:

    No worse than the people who will loan you money on the real estate you will leave behind after your death.

    Or those that will advance you a large sum of cash in exchange for your monthly lottery payment.

    Or, for that matter, no worse than ANY lawyer who takes on a case for a contingency fee.

  2. Cursor_ says:

    Well they have life insurance derivatives going on right now. So why not divorces?

    In the end their avarice will destroy the US if left unchecked.

    Cursor_

  3. msbpodcast says:

    There’s nothing as rapacious as a hungry lawyer, I guess.

    Even sharks stomach have limit; not so a lawyer’s bank account.

    Keep your children far away from there.

    Maybe the “impale the burns skull on a pike on your front lawn” example from the post-apocalypse video can serve us here.

  4. WhiteSnow says:

    Fisher Ames said, after the American Revolution that, “…we’ll hang all the lawyers…”

    They have written themselves so much into the law a small girl can no longer sell kool-aid at festivals.

    Where is the outrage any more? Need to read a new book out about Americans who actually take a stand against tyranny. It’s a must read if you want to possibly see our true destiny in life. I recommend it & will be giving it out as gifts this holiday with so little to spend this yr. It’s a good read for the year.

    http://www.booksbyoliver.com

    Remember, the bible/Declaration of Independence/USConstitution/Bill of Rights were all written in plain language for us to understand & without lawyers. Good article.

  5. bobbo, "its a shitty deal, but its the only deal you got!" says:

    Its not the lawyers: its the law.

    Of course lawyer advocacy groups do advocate for laws that benefit themselves “but” its still the law.

    Unless you want to blame business men for the sins of capitalism. Then, you are right. Its the lawyers.

    On the issue of funding lawsuits, consider the alternative. No funding of lawsuits except out of pocket by poor plaintiffs or (relatively) poor attorneys? If a case has merit on the law and on the facts, why shouldn’t the plaintiffs be given equal access to money as have the defendants? Lawsuits don’t get funded even when they are meritorious on the law and the facts if the defendants don’t have any money.

    Kinda evens things out, if you think about it.

  6. God says:

    In the end the divorced couples will end up with nothing but a scorecard of who got the most revenge.

  7. emm says:

    You are so right.
    “… the result of a ‘service’ economy where nothing is made, but people need to make a living somehow…?

    ‘My generation’ were raised with the belief to create value, innovate and leave the world a better place for the next guy.
    That sucks.

    I followed the rules and was screwed at every turn – hoping for a better outcome by varying the terms on the next encounter.

    Perhaps too late, but I’m past that now. I’m here to take what I can from whomever is dumb enough to put it out there. Fair game.

    Take what you can, and gloat about it in the gym as you roll up in your 2011 Porsche.

  8. Benjamin says:

    #6 said, “In the end the divorced couples will end up with nothing but a scorecard of who got the most revenge.”

    That is right. No value is created here. It is only destroyed or it goes into the pockets of the divorce attorneys. You can have an uncontested divorce for about five hundred dollars. More than that and you start eating into assets or else you have children and that makes it more difficult.

  9. What? says:

    There are two kinds of smart people:

    1. The innovative
    2. The creative

    The creative make new things. These people are the ones that make life great if they are, and managed by, “good” people. These people are very rare, very rare.

    The innovative people take what already exists and change it. This can be useful. Lawyers are innovators. The innovators are the majority of smart people. Because they are smart, by normal standards, they exist to exert themselves and do well. They can not create, and may be frustrated, and feel the need to fill that void by hoarding money etc.

  10. deowll says:

    I find it amusing that I have paid for one no fault divorce and have never been married.

    If it amounts to a quit claim why can’t they just go to the court house and get it terminated for a modest fee?

  11. MikeN says:

    Contingency fee lawyers should have their payouts capped, maybe ten thousand , and then no more than a certain hourly rate. They shouldn’t be able to collect 40% of a million dollar lawsuit.

  12. MikeN says:

    It helps when trial lawyer lobbies buy politicians, and feed them talking points about how big corporations need to be brought down by lawsuits.

  13. Its one giant scary world out there
    does anyone know the difference between efficiency and effectiveness
    Efficiency is how fast can you dig the hole
    Effectiveness is should we have dug that stupid hole in the first place
    I have had a lot of moronic managers who would monitor you on stupidity but had no idea or even cared if it was effective to begin with
    It was all about control so to speak
    Little things for little minds

  14. PKK says:

    Another effect of the litigation investment trend probably will be an acceleration of offshore legal outsourcing. Corporate legal departments, already under cost pressure, will see the pressure increase, with the rise of well-funded plaintiffs’ suits. And litigation investors, eager to get the best possible return, and treating litigation as a business, naturally will want to increase efficiencies through legal process outsourcing. So one of the big winners in the lawsuit funding area is likely to be the LPO industry.
    http://sddglobal.com
    high-end legal outsourcing


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5285 access attempts in the last 7 days.