神不知鬼不觉毁掉仇家？富豪靠打官司就能做到

怎样能合法地拔掉眼中钉？对于这个问题，我的第一反应是八卦网站Gawker和职业摔角手胡克•霍根对簿公堂的最新进展。今年3月，霍根在一起色情录像的起诉中向Gawker索赔1.4亿美元，狠狠教训了Gawker一番。

鉴于有些人可能没有持续关注，在此补一下最新进展。据《福布斯》报道，霍根索赔案得到了科技业亿万富翁彼得•泰尔的资助。《纽约时报》此前的报道证实了这一点。《福布斯》称，泰尔是此案中一些赶尽杀绝的法律手段的背后黑手，无所不用其极地想毁掉Gawker及其出版人尼克•登顿，让他们永不翻身。

回想起来，在一开始，此案本应该是有关原则的讨论，是霍根的隐私权和Gawker的自由言论权之争，结果上演了一场富豪痛击媒体的复仇大戏。

不少人都大为震动，包括《纽约时报》的前公众事务编辑玛格丽特•苏利文在内。

但不是所有人都不爽。有些人看到Gawker倒霉就很开心，比如倡导原始人饮食的专家约翰•杜兰特。

但无论你支持哪方，都应该先想想，泰尔的手段究竟合不合法。看清楚他都做了什么。泰尔偷偷借着别人的诉讼来打压媒体，而且他和霍根还都装作没事人一样。

假如报道属实，泰尔与霍根的这种行径让法律系统里原本就昏暗的角落（即诉讼融资）阴影更重。我的同事罗杰•帕罗夫曾在一篇特写里介绍过一个臭名昭著的案子，雪佛龙是被告。他在特写里解释说，诉讼融资通常是指投资者帮助负担诉讼的费用，胜诉后分得部分赔偿作为回报。

本案情况有所不同。这次是一位亿万富豪利用诉讼来借刀杀人，借机报复Gawker在2007年曝光他的隐私。

为什么合法，因为老一套的英美法系法规曾经禁止“助诉与帮诉”，通俗点说就是禁止“资助他人的诉讼，要么为了找麻烦，要么为了获得分成。”但时间久了，这个规定的效力已经逐渐衰落。

加拿大麦吉尔大学的宪法教授斯蒂芬•斯科特解释说，英美法系中过去明确规定禁止律师接手不确定事件的案子，随着“助诉与帮诉”的禁令失效，美国许多州都出台立法为律师解禁。

斯科特说：“大多数人都认为老一套法律陈腐过时，压迫人性。”他指出，由于法令禁止通过外部融资诉讼，因而无力负担诉讼费用的人也就无法伸张正义。

而随着过时法规失效，一些企业正在把诉讼融资变成大生意。这可能意味着，更多人有机会得到法庭的公正判决，但正如法律博客Above the Law的创始人大卫•拉特指出的，道德风险也随之增加。

或许公开披露可以解决问题：碰到类似于泰尔的富人资助诉讼，大家不是都有兴趣了解吗？事实上，现在并不是非公之于众不可。服务银行和对冲基金等客户的诉讼公司Burford Capital认为，法律规定得“无比清晰……没有义务披露诉讼融资协议的内容。”

拉特在推特（Twitter）上发的一个帖子指出，有些律师会自愿披露融资的协议，但他也表示，没有披露的一般义务。

同时，像Gawker这样的被告可能试图利用法律发现程序，找出隐藏在诉讼背后的敌人，但效果也有限。因为原告可以要求诸如“律师-当事人保密”或“律师服务成果保密”等特权，关闭被告追究的大门。

诉讼融资到底要发展到什么程度？天知道。现在泰尔就创造了一种新模式，敏感脆弱的亿万富翁可以毁掉一家媒体，甚至无需向其他任何人披露。而且这是完全合法的。(财富中文网)

译者：Pessy

审校：夏林

How can this be legal? That was my initial reaction to the latest twist in the gutter fight between gossip site Gawker and wrestler Hulk Hogan, who body-slammed the site for $140 million in a March verdict over a sex tape.

In case you missed it, the latest twist is that the Hogan lawsuit is being bank-rolled by billionaire tech mogul Peter Thiel, according to a Forbes report, since corroborated by the New York Times. The reports say that Thiel is responsible for a series of scorched earth legal tactics aimed at destroying Gawker and its publisher, Nick Denton, forever.

Recall, in the beginning, this case was supposed to be about principle: Hogan’s right to privacy versus Gawker’s right to free speech. Instead, it’s really just about a rich man’s vendetta against a media outlet he sees as his enemy.

Many people, including the former public editor of the New York Times, are alarmed.

Not everyone, though, is upset. Some folks, like this paleo diet guru, are just glad someone stuck it to Gawker.

But whoever you support, it’s worth asking if Thiel’s tactics should be legal if the first place. Think about what he did. He crawled into someone else’s lawsuit in order to squash a media outlet, and neither he nor Hogan had to tell anyone about it.

The Thiel-Hogan arrangement, if the reports are accurate, represents a new frontier in the murky corner of the legal system known as litigation finance. As my colleague Roger Parloff explained in a feature about a notorious lawsuit against Chevron, the practice normally involves investors underwriting a lawsuit in return for a cut of the proceeds.

This is different. It appears to be about a billionaire renting a lawsuit in order to destroy someone, possibly in retaliation for Gawker outing him in 2007.

As for why it’s legal, the answer lies in the long-term erosion of old common law rules that forbade “champerty and maintenance” or, in plain English, “funding someone else’s lawsuit to cause trouble or collect a cut.”

According to Stephen Scott, a constitutional law professor at McGill University, the common law rules prevented lawyers from working on contingency, which is what led many states to write statutes over-riding them.

“Most people regard the old laws as obsolete, archaic and oppressive,” said Scott, noting that bans on outside financing for lawsuits can keep people from seeking justice because they won’t be able to afford it.

But as the old rules are lifted, companies are turning lawsuit funding into big business. This might represent a chance for more people to get a fair shake in court but, as David Lat, a founder of legal blog Above the Law notes, it also raises ethical issues.

Perhaps, this could be solved by disclosure: Isn’t it in everyone’s interest to know when people like Thiel are behind a lawsuit? As it turns out, no one has to say a thing. According to Burford Capital, a litigation company whose clients include banks and hedge funds, the law is “perfectly clear … there is no obligation to disclose litigation financing arrangements.”

In a Twitter message, Lat noted that some lawyers will voluntarily disclose a financing arrangement, but agreed that there is no general obligation to disclose.

Defendants like Gawker, meanwhile, might try to use the legal discovery process to unearth hidden enemies, but it won’t work. The reason is because it is easy for plaintiffs to shut the door by invoking so-called privileges like “lawyer-client” or “attorney work product.”

So where does it all stop? Who knows. As it stands, Thiel has created a model where any thin-skinned billionaire can ruin a media company without even telling anyone. And it’s all perfectly legal.