постановление сената, упомянутое в Dig. 48, 7, 6, содержало положение, аналогичное английскому закону о «чемперти»:
лица, присоединившиеся к чужому иску и заключившие сделку о получении части возмещения убытков в случае осуждения, подлежат наказанию по закону Юлия о частном насилии.
Champerty and maintenance - are doctrines in common law jurisdictions, that aim to preclude frivolous litigation.
"Maintenance" is the intermeddling of a disinterested party to encourage a lawsuit. It is "A taking in hand, a bearing up or upholding of quarrels or sides, to the disturbance of the common right." "Champerty" is the "maintenance" of a person in a lawsuit on condition that the subject matter of the action is to be shared with the maintainer. Among laypersons, this is known as "buying into someone else's lawsuit."
"In modern idiom maintenance is the support of litigation by a stranger without just cause. Champerty is an aggravated form of maintenance. The distinguishing feature of champerty is the support of litigation by a stranger in return for a share of the proceeds"
-- Lord Justice Steyn , Giles v Thompson
At common law, maintenance and champerty were both crimes and torts, as was barratry, the bringing of vexatious litigation. This is generally no longer so as during the 19th century, the development of legal ethics tended to obviate the risks to the public, particularly after the scandal of the Swynfen will case (1856–1864).
However, the principles are relevant to modern contingent fee agreements between a lawyer and a client and to the assignment by a plaintiff of his rights in a lawsuit to someone with no connection to the case.
Champertous contracts can still, depending on jurisdiction, be void for public policy or attract liability for costs.
This concept exists in US jurisprudence but disdained by "fans of entrepreneurial lawyering in the academy and elsewhere."
There has been recent common usage of the term in the media in Nevada and Ohio.