Crowdfunding a Legal Case: How It Worked for Our Team

There was a moment, sitting in a quiet room surrounded by piles of legal texts, when the sheer scale of what we were contemplating hit home. We had a profound constitutional question that we believed deserved a judicial answer, yet the traditional routes to fund such a challenge were firmly closed. The decision to turn to the public, to ask ordinary people across Scotland to back a complex case in the Court of Session, was as daunting as it was exhilarating. It was a leap of faith, but one that transformed a legal argument into a collective national conversation.

The Genesis of the Section 30 Challenge

The political landscape had descended into a seemingly intractable deadlock. The Scottish Government asserted a mandate to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence, while the UK Government consistently refused to grant a Section 30 order, the legislative mechanism that had facilitated the 2014 vote. This stalemate left a fundamental question hanging in the air: what is the actual legal competence of the Scottish Parliament? We believed the public deserved an answer that didn’t rely on political spin, and Martin J Keatings initiated an action to cut through the noise and seek judicial clarity.

Why We Believed a Court Ruling Was Necessary

Political manifestos are, by their nature, statements of ambition rather than definitive legal frameworks. We watched as both sides of the constitutional debate claimed absolute certainty on the law, yet no independent arbiter had tested those claims. A court ruling was necessary to move the debate from rhetoric to reality, providing a definitive legal baseline that would either confirm the Scottish Parliament’s powers or clarify the limits of its competence. Without that, the electorate in constituencies like Mid-Scotland and Fife were being asked to make electoral choices based on competing legal assumptions.

The Specific Legal Question We Sought to Answer

Our case was laser-focused on a precise point of law. We sought a declarator from the Court of Session on whether the Scottish Parliament could legislate for an independence referendum without a Section 30 order in place. This was not a question about the political desirability of independence; it was a technical, constitutional inquiry into the boundaries of devolved legislative power under the Scotland Act 1998. We believed that answering this question was a prerequisite for any legitimate democratic process.

Why We Turned to Crowdfunding

Facing the legal might of government law departments is a sobering prospect for any individual. Their resources are effectively limitless, funded by the public purse. For a case that sought to serve the entire Mid-Scotland and Fife electorate and beyond, traditional litigation funding models were a non-starter. Crowdfunding wasn’t just a nice idea; it was the only viable mechanism to level a playing field that was tilted dramatically against the ordinary citizen seeking to hold power to legal account.

The Barrier of Traditional Litigation Funding

Approaching conventional litigation funders quickly revealed the problem. Such entities are commercially driven, looking for a financial return on their investment. A constitutional case seeking a declarator offers no damages, no financial settlement, and no pot of gold at the end. We were also unwilling to accept funding from any single large donor or political entity, as that would have tainted the perception of the case as a purely public-interest endeavour. The door was firmly shut on the old ways of doing things.

A Direct Appeal to the People of Scotland

The logic was simple but radical: if the case was about the democratic rights of the people, then the people should have the opportunity to fund it. We made a direct appeal, not to political parties, but to individuals who simply wanted a court to clarify the law. This approach ensured our independence and meant that our only obligation was to the court and to the thousands of supporters who chipped in what they could afford. It turned a legal action into a genuinely democratic project.

Building the CrowdJustice Campaign

Choosing the right vehicle for the campaign was critical. We needed a platform with credibility in the legal sector and robust mechanisms for handling funds transparently. The process of building the campaign page was unexpectedly intense, requiring us to articulate complex constitutional law in a way that was accessible and compelling, while simultaneously undergoing strict legal vetting to ensure nothing we said could prejudice the live proceedings.

Choosing the Right Platform for Legal Crowdfunding

We selected CrowdJustice because it is specifically designed for legal cases. Unlike generic fundraising sites, CrowdJustice understood the unique requirements of litigation, including the need to ring-fence funds and manage payouts directly to legal teams. The platform’s reputation gave potential donors confidence that their money would be handled professionally and used exclusively for the stated legal purpose. It removed a significant layer of administrative complexity and allowed us to focus on the legal work.

Calculating the Target: Adverse Costs and Counsel Fees

Setting the financial target was a nerve-wracking exercise in brutal honesty. The headline figure wasn’t just about paying our own legal team; the most significant risk was adverse expenses. In the Scottish courts, the losing party generally pays the winning party’s legal costs. We had to calculate a realistic figure that would cover a potential liability to the UK Government’s legal team, as well as our own counsel’s fees and court dues. We set a target that reflected the genuine, and frankly frightening, financial risk we were asking Martin to shoulder on behalf of the public interest.

The Momentum of the Mid-Scotland and Fife Electorate

When we launched, the response was immediate and overwhelming. It was a stark demonstration that the desire for clarity on Scottish independence cut across traditional party lines. Donations flooded in not just from committed activists, but from undecided voters, lawyers, students, and pensioners across Mid-Scotland and Fife and far beyond. The campaign became a lightning rod for a broad, unaffiliated public who were tired of the political stalemate and wanted a judge, not a politician, to provide an answer.

How We Hit the Initial Target in a Matter of Days

The speed of the public’s response was staggering. We hit our initial funding target within days, a result that sent a powerful message to the court and to the government. It was a tangible demonstration of the public interest in the legal question. The rapid influx of small donations proved that this was a genuine grassroots movement, not a front for vested interests. It gave our legal team a profound sense of validation and the financial security to proceed with the strongest possible arguments.

Transparency and Updates During the Live Case

We treated our backers as partners in the process. While we could not discuss the substantive legal arguments in detail during the live case, we provided regular updates on the procedural steps, explaining what each hearing was for and what to expect next. This transparency was vital for maintaining trust. When the case was delayed or procedural hurdles arose, we explained the situation honestly. We believe this direct line of communication turned thousands of individual donors into a cohesive, informed community following the journey through the Court of Session.

Navigating the Court of Session

The procedural journey through Scotland’s highest civil court was a steep learning curve. From the initial procedural first hearing to the substantive debate, every step was funded directly by the public’s generosity. That knowledge carried a weight of responsibility, but it also meant our legal team could instruct leading counsel without compromise, ensuring the arguments presented before Lady Carmichael were as robust and meticulously researched as any put forward by the state.

From Petition to Hearing: A Procedural Overview

The case began with lodging a petition for judicial review. This was followed by a series of procedural hearings where legal standing, the precise terms of the declarator sought, and the timetable for arguments were debated and fixed by the court. Finally, we reached the substantive hearing, a concentrated period of intense legal argument where our counsel laid out the constitutional reasoning, facing direct challenge from the legal representatives of the Advocate General. The entire process, from first filing to final submissions, was a direct result of the crowdfunded resources.

The Verdict and the Legacy of Public Access to Justice

The court ultimately ruled that the legal question we had raised was hypothetical and premature, as no bill for an independence referendum had been passed by the Scottish Parliament. Lady Carmichael dismissed the action on that basis. While the substantive question on the Section 30 order was not answered, the case itself permanently altered the landscape of public access to constitutional justice in the UK.

Digesting the Outcome: What the Court Decided

Lady Carmichael’s ruling was a masterclass in legal procedure. She did not say the Scottish Parliament had the power to hold a referendum without a Section 30 order, nor did she say it lacked that power. The judgment was that the court could not rule on a hypothetical question; the issue was not yet “live” in a legal sense. It was a frustrating outcome for those seeking a definitive answer, but it was a clear demonstration of the court’s strict adherence to its own rules on justiciability.

Would We Crowdfund a Constitutional Case Again?

Without hesitation. The process proved that crowdfunding is not just a last resort; it is a powerful tool for democratizing access to justice. It allows the public to collectively hold power to account in a way that bypasses the gatekeepers of traditional funding. The key facts of our campaign—using CrowdJustice to manage funds, facing the risk of adverse expenses, and appearing before Lady Carmichael in the Court of Session—are now a proof of concept. It showed that if a legal question matters deeply to the people of constituencies like Mid-Scotland and Fife, they can and will fund the search for an answer.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the core legal question in the Section 30 challenge?

We asked the Court of Session to issue a declarator clarifying whether the Scottish Parliament has the legislative competence to pass a bill for an independence referendum without first obtaining a Section 30 order from the UK Government.

Why did you use CrowdJustice instead of a standard fundraising site?

CrowdJustice is a platform built specifically for legal cases. It provides the necessary infrastructure for handling funds transparently, managing payouts directly to solicitors and counsel, and giving donors confidence that their money is ring-fenced for the specific litigation.

What are adverse expenses and why were they a major concern?

Adverse expenses are the legal costs you must pay to the other side if you lose the case. Given we were facing the UK Government’s legal department, the potential liability for adverse expenses was substantial, and covering this risk was the primary driver of our crowdfunding target.

What was Lady Carmichael’s final decision in the case?

Lady Carmichael dismissed the action as premature. She ruled that the court could not answer a hypothetical legal question, as no referendum bill had yet been passed by the Scottish Parliament, meaning the matter was not yet “live” for judicial determination.

How did the Mid-Scotland and Fife connection influence the case?

Martin J Keatings stood as a candidate in Mid-Scotland and Fife, and the case was brought to serve the democratic interests of that electorate and the wider Scottish public. The constituency became a focal point, demonstrating how a single individual could act to seek constitutional clarity on behalf of a defined community.

In the end, a court can only ever answer the legal question placed before it, and on this occasion, the rules of procedure meant the substantive answer remained elusive. But the collective act of crowdfunding transcended the legal outcome. It revealed a profound and broad-based public appetite for constitutional clarity, a demand that cannot be satisfied by political manifestos alone. The thousands of individual donations were a statement in themselves: that the people are willing to invest their own money to seek the quiet, reasoned judgment of a court over the noise of the political arena.