Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-9-23 (2026)

Champerty and maintenance; exceptions; legislative intent

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The provisions of Sections 97-9-11 through 97-9-23 shall not be applicable to attorneys who are parties to contingent fee contracts with their clients where the attorney does not pay or protect the client from payment of the costs and expenses of litigation, nor shall said sections apply to suits pertaining to or affecting possession of or title to real or personal property, nor shall said sections apply to suits involving the legality of assessment or collection of taxes, nor shall said sections apply to suits involving rates or charges by common carriers or public utilities, nor shall said sections apply to criminal prosecutions, nor to the payment of attorneys by legal aid societies approved by the Mississippi State Bar.

Nothing in Sections 97-9-11 through 97-9-23 is intended to be in derogation of the constitutional right of real parties in interest to employ counsel or to prosecute any available legal remedy. The intent, as herein set out, is to prohibit and punish, more clearly and definitely, champerty, maintenance, barratry, and the solicitation or stirring up of litigation, whether the same be committed by licensed attorneys or by others who are not real parties in interest to the subject matter of such litigation.

Codes, 1942, § 2049-07; Laws, 1956, ch. 253, § 7.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Sneed v. Ford Motor Co., 735 So. 2d 306 (Miss. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sneed v. Ford Motor Co., 735 So. 2d 306 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 3× “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-9-23 (Rev. 1994), entitled Champerty and maintenance; exceptions; legislative intent, provides that: The provisions of sections 97-9-11 to 97-9-23 shall not be applicable to attorneys who are parties to contingent fee contracts with their clients where the…”

Caleb Crabtree & Adriane Crabtree as Assignees of the Claims of Casey Cotton v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Miss. 2025). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 97-9-23 (Rev. 2020) (emphasis added).”

United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. (Miss. 1997). · cites it 3× “Miss. Code Ann. § 97-9-23 (Rev. 1994), entitled Champerty and maintenance; exceptions; legislative intent, provides that: The provisions of sections 97-9-11 to 97-9-23 shall not be applicable to attorneys who are parties to contingent fee contracts with their clients where the…”

Crabtree v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (S.D. Miss. 2023). “” See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-9-23 . The Crabtrees next argue that Mississippi’s statutes permitting assignments, Miss.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.