Barratry is the improper solicitation of a client done by or on behalf of an attorney and is a criminal offense in most states. The filing of a lawsuit or other legal complaint without the permission of the named plaintiff or complainant may also constitute barratry. And a judge who accepts a bribe in exchange for a favorable decision may be guilty of barratry.

Maintenance refers to improper assistance in prosecuting or defending a lawsuit, provided by someone who has no legitimate interest in the case—also known as meddling in someone else's litigation.

And champerty is an agreement between a litigant and an intermeddler in a lawsuit in which the intermeddler helps the litigant pursue the claim in exchange for receiving part of any settlement or judgment in the litigation.

Laws regarding barratry, maintenance, and champerty vary from state to state and are usually located in a state's statutes—often in the penal code or criminal code. Barratry is illegal in all states, with criminal prosecution and state licensing implications for attorneys who engage in the practice. But the maintenance and champerty doctrines are not recognized in all states.

In Alabama, barratry is considered an unethical practice and is addressed under the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit attorneys from soliciting clients in a manner that violates the rules. Specifically, Rule 7.3 restricts attorneys from soliciting professional employment from a prospective client through in-person, live telephone, or real-time electronic contact when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain. While Alabama does not have a specific criminal statute that defines barratry, attorneys engaging in such conduct may face disciplinary action by the Alabama State Bar, including disbarment. Regarding maintenance and champerty, Alabama does not have specific statutes that address these issues directly. However, Alabama case law has historically disfavored champerty and maintenance, considering them contrary to public policy. Despite this, modern trends have relaxed the strict prohibitions against such arrangements, particularly with the rise of litigation financing and the recognition of certain exceptions, such as agreements with attorneys on a contingency fee basis. It is important for attorneys to navigate these issues carefully to avoid ethical violations and potential disciplinary action.