Editing Champerty and maintenance (section)

===Hong Kong===
In Hong Kong, champerty and maintenance were long thought to be obsolete both as a crime and a tort, but these two principles have been revived in recent years in response to the prevalence of recovery agents which present problems quite different from the mischief which historically these rules intended to combat.

The recovery agents typically perform "ambulance chasing" on accident victims, offering to arrange lawyers to handle their claims on a "no win no fee" basis. If the claim succeeds the recovery agents share a portion of the damages. This is seen as deception on uneducated victims who are ignorant to the availability of legal aid. The division of the damages in effect deprives the victims of the just compensation that they are entitled to for their bodily injury. The intermeddling of recovery agents in the lawsuit also presents ethical problems to lawyers, who may have undermined impartiality in advising on settlement. In response, the Department of Justice and the Law Society of Hong Kong carried out a massive publicity campaign aiming at educating the public to refuse recovery agents, citing that maintenance and champerty are criminal offences under the laws of Hong Kong.

In 2008, 21 people were arrested for champerty, maintenance and conspiracy. They were recovery agents "helping" accident victims on a "no win no fee" basis. One of the people arrested was a lawyer. Champerty and maintenance carries a sentence of up to seven years in Hong Kong.<ref>[http://www.news.gov.hk/en/category/lawandorder/080708/html/080708en08004.htm Caution issued on recovery agents] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081121093407/http://www.news.gov.hk/en/category/lawandorder/080708/html/080708en08004.htm |date=21 November 2008 }}</ref><ref>[http://www.mingpaonews.com/20080709/gca2.htm 包攬訴訟屬刑事可判囚]</ref>

On 25 June 2009, Winnie Lo Wai Yan, a solicitor, was convicted for conspiracy to maintain and a recovery agent was convicted for conspiracy to champer. She was found to have agreed to share 25% from the damages paid to the next friend of an 18-year-old traffic accident victim who suffered from permanent total loss of earning capacity. On 10 July 2009, Lo was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment and the recovery agent was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment (Case number: DCCC 610/2008). Lo appealed in the same year and on 3 December 2010, her appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Case number: CACC 254/2009).

On 30 January 2012, Lo's conviction was quashed in the Court of Final Appeal (Case number: FACC 2/2011). The Reasons for Judgment, published on 23 February 2012, stated that there is a serious problem with the finding made and endorsed by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal respectively that Lo knew that there had been champerty involved. Although the judge found maintenance and champerty are constitutional, he questioned whether criminal liability for maintenance should be retained in Hong Kong as liability for both maintenance and champerty were abolished in places such as England and South Australia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=80458|title=Judgment|work=judiciary.gov.hk}}</ref>

On 26 March 2013, Louie Mui Kwok-keung, a barrister, was sentenced in the District Court to 3.5 years of imprisonment. He pleaded not guilty on 18 February 2013, to five counts of champerty and maintenance, allegedly committed between 1999 and 2008. He was the first barrister in the city to be convicted of such crimes (Case number: DCCC 890/2012).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1200505/history-made-barrister-louie-mui-jailed-illegal-deals-clients|title=History made as barrister Louie Mui is jailed for illegal deals with clients|work=South China Morning Post|date=27 March 2013 }}</ref>