Trending Now
  • Sigma Funding Secures $35,000,000 Credit Facility, Bryant Park Capital Serves as Financial Advisor
Commercial People Moves

How Qian Julie Wang’s Upbringing as an Undocumented Immigrant Informed Her Legal Career

September 28, 2022

How Qian Julie Wang’s Upbringing as an Undocumented Immigrant Informed Her Legal Career

For the keynote address of the LF Dealmakers conference, Validity Finance Founder and CEO Ralph Sutton, introduced NY Times Best-Selling Author and Civil Rights Litigator, Qian Julie Wang. Her memoir, Beautiful Country, was ranked a best book of 2021 by the New York Times, and has been well-reviewed by many distinguished outlets. Ms. Wang began by sharing her ‘most humiliating story’ from Big Law. She began her carer at a top-5 firm as a hungry summer associate eager to prove herself at this white-shoe law firm. She noticed that partners and associates kept coming to her asking her to take on various assignments, and didn’t realize that she should select which ones to work on, so she said yes to each offer, so quickly found herself working on 10 major litigation cases. For the next month, Ms. Wang skipped all of the orientation, lunches, outings, and buried her head in WestLaw doing research. It turns out, one of the training sessions she missed was quite important–because a senior partner at the firm called her into his office and asked her what the hell she had been doing for five weeks? Ms. Wang hadn’t been billing any of her research time, because she had missed the training session that explained that part of the process. So the vast majority of her work went un-billed. Through some self reflection, Ms. Wang realized that her problem stemmed from her belief that she didn’t belong. Her very first job was age 7 at a sweatshop in Chinatown, as an undocumented immigrant, and here she was in a fancy white-shoe law firm. She had spent her life afraid of anyone in a uniform, afraid they might be out to deport her. And so when she got her summer associate job at the law firm, she brought that insecurity in the door with her. Ms Wang described her family’s suffering under the Communist takeover of China, how they were imprisoned and tortured for reading banned books. She came to admire two Americans she read about–Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Thurgood Marshall. That was when she decided to become a lawyer, when she eventually came to America. However, like many lawyers, she fell into the trap of focusing just on the compensation. She billed and billed so many hours that she lost her sense of purpose. It wasn’t until she started writing her memoir, Beautiful Country, that she re-discovered the reason she became a lawyer in the first place. She realized that the little girl who had grown up working in a sweatshop dreamed of being a lawyer so she could help people, and here years later she had achieved that dream, but the allure of those billable hours had caused her to lose the plot. Ms. Wang took a sharp turn and decided to focus her efforts on helping marginalized communities. Her work now helps her find her way back to the child she was, and provides a sense of fulfillment about her career that she never previously experienced.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Congress Debates Litigation Funding Bill

By John Freund |

Republican lawmakers have renewed their push to rein in third-party litigation funding, with a House Judiciary Committee debate highlighting how politically charged the issue has become.

An article in The Daily Signal reports that members of the House Judiciary Committee clashed this week over legislation that would require disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements in federal courts. Supporters of the bill framed it as a transparency measure aimed at exposing the financial interests behind major lawsuits, while opponents warned that the proposal risks limiting access to justice and unfairly targeting a growing segment of the legal finance market.

During the committee debate, Republican lawmakers argued that outside investors are increasingly influencing litigation in ways that can distort outcomes and inflate settlement values. Several speakers characterized litigation funders as profit-driven actors operating in the shadows, asserting that judges and defendants deserve to know who stands to benefit financially from a case. Proponents also linked litigation funding to broader concerns about rising legal costs and what they describe as abusive litigation practices.

Democratic members pushed back, questioning whether the bill was designed to solve an actual problem or simply to deter plaintiffs from bringing legitimate claims. Critics of the proposal argued that disclosure requirements could chill funding for complex and expensive cases, particularly those involving individual plaintiffs or smaller businesses facing well-capitalized defendants. They also raised concerns about confidentiality and whether revealing funding arrangements could give defendants a tactical advantage.

The debate reflects a broader national conversation about the role of litigation finance in the civil justice system. While disclosure requirements have already been adopted in certain courts and jurisdictions, the proposed legislation would impose a uniform federal standard. Supporters say this consistency is overdue, while opponents argue it could undermine carefully negotiated funding structures that allow cases to proceed at all.

Commercial

APCIA Supports Federal Litigation Funding Disclosure Bill

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has intensified its campaign for greater scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, with one of its most influential trade groups backing new federal legislation aimed squarely at disclosure.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that the American Property Casualty Insurance Association has thrown its support behind a proposed federal bill that would require parties in civil litigation to disclose the existence of litigation funding agreements. The legislation, which is currently being considered by the House Judiciary Committee, would mandate that courts be informed when a third party has a financial stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Proponents argue that this information is essential for judges to understand who stands behind a claim and whether outside financial interests may be influencing litigation strategy.

APCIA framed its endorsement around long-standing concerns about rising litigation costs and what insurers describe as “social inflation.” According to the group, undisclosed litigation funding arrangements can drive up claim severity, prolong disputes, and ultimately increase costs for insurers and policyholders alike. By requiring transparency, APCIA believes courts would be better positioned to manage conflicts of interest, assess discovery disputes, and evaluate settlement dynamics.

The association has been an active voice in the national debate over litigation finance for several years, often aligning with other insurance and business groups calling for disclosure regimes at both the state and federal level. APCIA leadership emphasized that the proposed legislation is not intended to ban or restrict litigation funding outright, but rather to ensure that judges and opposing parties have visibility into financial relationships that could bear on a case.

The bill would apply broadly in federal courts and could have significant implications for how funded cases are litigated, particularly in complex commercial disputes and class actions where third-party capital is more common. Insurers view federal action as a way to establish consistency across jurisdictions, rather than relying on a patchwork of state rules and local practices.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Why Big Law Is Walking Away From Suits Against Governments

Elite global law firms are increasingly declining to pursue massive claims against sovereign states, even when potential recoveries run into the billions. The trend reflects a reassessment inside Big Law of the risk, cost, and strategic value of investor state and public law disputes that can take years to resolve and often carry significant political and reputational complications.

An article in Law.com International reports that top-tier firms which once dominated investor state arbitration and other government facing disputes are now far more selective about taking on such matters. Lawyers interviewed for the piece point to a combination of commercial pressure, client demands, and internal firm dynamics that make these cases less attractive than they once were. Although headline damages can be enormous, the cases typically require years of work, large multidisciplinary teams, and significant upfront investment with no guarantee of recovery.

Another key factor is reputational risk. Firms are increasingly cautious about being seen as adversaries of governments, particularly in sensitive jurisdictions or disputes involving public policy, natural resources, or infrastructure. Partners noted that political backlash, enforcement uncertainty, and the potential impact on other client relationships all weigh heavily when firms decide whether to proceed.

The article also highlights that many corporate clients are less willing to bankroll these disputes directly. Budget scrutiny has intensified, and companies facing disputes with states are often reluctant to commit tens of millions in legal fees over a long time horizon. This dynamic has contributed to a rise in alternative fee arrangements and third party litigation funding, though even those tools do not fully offset the burden for law firms carrying significant work in progress.

As a result, specialist boutiques and arbitration focused firms are increasingly stepping into the space once dominated by global giants. These smaller players often have lower overhead, deeper niche expertise, and a greater tolerance for the long timelines associated with sovereign disputes.