Raghupathi Viju, Ren Jie, Raghupathi Wullianallur
Koppelman School of Business, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York, United States of America.
Gabelli School of Business, Fordham University, New York, New York, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2021 Apr 27;16(4):e0250522. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250522. eCollection 2021.
The escalating cost of civil litigation is leaving many defendants and plaintiffs unable to meet legal expenses such as attorney fees, court charges and others. This significantly impacts their ability to sue or defend themselves effectively. Related to this phenomenon is the ethics discussion around access to justice and crowdfunding. This article explores the dimensions that explain the phenomenon of litigation crowdfunding. Using data from CrowdJustice, a popular Internet fundraising platform used to assist in turning legal cases into publicly funded social cases, we study litigation crowdfunding through the lenses of the number of pledges, goal achievement, target amount, length of description, country, case category, and others. Overall, we see a higher number of cases seeking funding in the categories of human rights, environment, and judicial review. Meanwhile, the platform offers access to funding for other less prominent categories, such as voting rights, personal injury, intellectual property, and data & privacy. At the same time, donors are willing to donate more to cases related to health, politics, and public services. Also noteworthy is that while donors are willing to donate to education, animal welfare, data & privacy, and inquest-related cases, they are not willing to donate large sums to these causes. In terms of lawyer/law firm status, donors are more willing to donate to cases assisted by experienced lawyers. Furthermore, we also note that the higher the number of successful cases an attorney presents, the greater the amount raised. We analyzed valence, arousal, and dominance in case description and found they have a positive relationship with funds raised. Also, when a case description is updated on a crowdsourcing site, it ends up being more successful in funding-at least in the categories of health, immigration, and judicial review. This is not the case, however, for categories such as public service, human rights, and environment. Our research addresses whether litigation crowdfunding, in particular, levels the playing field in terms of opening up financing opportunities for those individuals who cannot afford the costs of litigation. While it may support social justice, ethical concerns with regards to the kinds of campaigns must also be addressed. Most of the ethical concerns center around issues relating to both the fundraisers and donors. Our findings have ethical and social justice implications for crowdfunding platform design.
民事诉讼成本的不断攀升，使得许多被告和原告无力承担律师费、法庭费用等法律开支。这严重影响了他们有效起诉或自我辩护的能力。与此现象相关的是围绕司法救助和众筹的伦理讨论。本文探讨了解释诉讼众筹现象的多个维度。利用来自CrowdJustice（一个用于协助将法律案件转变为公共资助社会案件的热门互联网筹款平台）的数据，我们从认捐数量、目标达成情况、目标金额、描述长度、国家、案件类别等角度研究诉讼众筹。总体而言，我们发现人权、环境和司法审查类别的案件寻求资金的数量较多。同时，该平台也为其他不太突出的类别提供资金渠道，如投票权、人身伤害、知识产权以及数据与隐私。与此同时，捐赠者更愿意向与健康、政治和公共服务相关的案件捐款。同样值得注意的是，虽然捐赠者愿意向教育、动物福利、数据与隐私以及死因调查相关的案件捐款，但他们并不愿意为这些事业捐赠大笔资金。就律师/律师事务所的状况而言，捐赠者更愿意向由经验丰富的律师协助的案件捐款。此外，我们还注意到，律师成功代理的案件数量越多，筹集到的资金数额就越大。我们分析了案件描述中的效价、唤醒度和优势性，发现它们与筹集到的资金呈正相关。而且，当一个案件描述在众包网站上更新时，它最终在资金筹集方面会更成功——至少在健康、移民和司法审查类别中是这样。然而，公共服务、人权和环境等类别并非如此。我们的研究探讨了诉讼众筹是否特别是在为那些无力承担诉讼费用的个人开辟融资机会方面创造了公平竞争环境。虽然它可能支持社会正义，但也必须解决与这类活动相关的伦理问题。大多数伦理问题集中在与筹款者和捐赠者都相关的问题上。我们的研究结果对众筹平台设计具有伦理和社会正义方面的启示。
