Legal Definitions - de champertia

In historical English law, de champertia referred to a specific legal order, known as a writ, issued to judges. Its purpose was to instruct and compel these judges to actively enforce the laws against champerty. Champerty itself was a practice considered illegal, where a third party, who had no direct involvement in a legal dispute, would agree to finance one side of a lawsuit in exchange for a share of any money or property recovered if that side won. The writ of de champertia was therefore a mechanism to prevent and punish such agreements, which were viewed as potentially encouraging unnecessary litigation and undermining the integrity of the justice system.

• Imagine a wealthy landowner in medieval England who offers to pay all legal costs for a tenant involved in a boundary dispute with a neighboring lord. In return, the landowner demands a significant portion of any land or compensation the tenant might win. If this arrangement came to the attention of the King's court, a writ of de champertia could be issued to the local justices overseeing the case, reminding them of their duty to investigate and nullify such a champertous agreement, thereby preventing the landowner from profiting from a lawsuit they had no original stake in.

• Consider a situation where a powerful merchant frequently funds lawsuits for various individuals against their business rivals, always with the understanding that he will receive a percentage of any successful settlement or judgment. If a judge presiding over one of these cases began to suspect this pattern, a higher court or the Crown might issue a writ of de champertia directly to that judge. This writ would serve as a formal directive, emphasizing the judge's responsibility to scrutinize the funding arrangements of the litigation and take action against any proven champertous practices to ensure fairness and prevent abuse of the legal system.

• During a period when concerns about widespread abuse of the legal system through third-party financing were high, the Crown might issue a general writ of de champertia to all justices of the bench. This would not be for a specific case, but rather a broad mandate, instructing all judges to be vigilant and rigorous in applying and enforcing the laws against champerty across all cases within their jurisdiction. It would act as a systemic reminder and enforcement tool to uphold the principle that legal disputes should be pursued by those directly affected, not by opportunistic third parties seeking financial gain.