Champerty

The company was involved in champerty by funding a lawsuit against its competitor.

The defendant accused the plaintiff of engaging in champerty by using a third party to fund the lawsuit.

The judge warned the plaintiff against champerty and advised her to pursue the lawsuit independently.

The attorney was accused of engaging in champerty by providing financial assistance to the plaintiff.

The lawyer was accused of champerty for encouraging his friend to sue a former business partner.

The judge declared that the plaintiff's legal suit was based on champerty.

The appellate court upheld the lower court's ruling that the champerty agreement violated the law.

The lawyer was reprimanded by the bar association for engaging in champerty.

The contract included a clause prohibiting champerty by the parties.

The court held that the champerty agreement was invalid and unenforceable.

The third-party financing of litigation is known as champerty.

The plaintiff's lawyer denied any involvement in champerty and insisted that his client had a legal interest in the lawsuit.

The court found the defendant guilty of champerty and imposed a fine.

The court found evidence of champerty in the case and dismissed the lawsuit.

The attorney general issued a statement condemning champerty as an unethical practice.

The court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds of champerty, as the plaintiff had no legitimate interest in the matter.

Champerty is considered unethical behavior in the legal community.

Champerty is a prohibited activity in the legal profession.

The businessman offered to fund the lawsuit in exchange for a share of the settlement, which is an example of champerty.

The champerty lawsuit was not in the best interest of the community.