Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues Special Features

Select Ethical Issues Present in Litigation Funding

October 14, 2021

Select Ethical Issues Present in Litigation Funding

The following article was contributed by John J. Hanley, Partner at Rimon Law.  Litigation financing is on the rise in the United States and provides some claimants a valuable means for paying the costs of pursuing a legal claim. Lawyer involvement in litigation financing transactions raises many ethical issues for a lawyer such as competence, duty of loyalty, the potential waiver of privilege and interference by a third party, to name a few. Competence The first rule for lawyers under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (the “NY RPC”) is competence.[1]  Lawyers and law firms should tread carefully when considering undertaking client engagements in a subject area in which they do not have the requisite knowledge and skill to provide competent representation of their clients. Official Comment 1 to Rule 1.1 provides in part that factors relevant to determining whether a lawyer has the requisite knowledge and skill in a matter include the relative complexity and specialized nature of the matter, the lawyer’s general experience, the lawyer’s training and experience in the filed in question, and the preparation the lawyer is able to give the matter.[2] This does not mean that lawyers cannot deal with matters in which they are initially unfamiliar.  Indeed, the American Bar Association points out in comments to Rule 1.1 that “[a] lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior experience to handle legal problems of a type with which the lawyer is unfamiliar. The analysis of precedent  . . . and legal drafting are required in all legal problems. Perhaps the most fundamental legal skill consists of determining what kind of legal problems a situation may involve, a skill that necessarily transcends any particular specialized knowledge. A lawyer can provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field through necessary study.”[3] According to the New York City Bar Report to the President by the New York City Bar Association Working Group on Litigation Funding: “[a] lawyer whose client seeks third party funding should determine at the outset whether he or she has the transactional experience and sophistication required to negotiate a beneficial agreement with the funder or whether a specialist in the field should be involved.”[4] Competence in litigation finance includes familiarity with various litigation financing structures and privileges against disclosure, among others.[5]  For example, the structure may involve different types of collateral, different means of financing legal fees and expenses, the manner in which funding is disbursed and the return structure of the financing.  A lawyer concentrating her or his practice on litigation funding may also be better able to determine “market” terms of the financing. Duty of Loyalty and the Lawyer’s Financial Interests Of course, the lawyer is the client’s fiduciary and agent who owes his or her client undivided loyalty and is forbidden from putting her interest above that of the client. The New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics reminds lawyers that their financial interests must not interfere with the representation of the client.[6] Ordinarily, there is nothing adverse to a client about a lawyer getting paid for legal services[7] but in a litigation funding transaction the lawyer could have a personal interest in respect of the transaction. For example, the litigation funding agreement may facilitate payment of a portion of the lawyer’s fees or ensure certain expenses borne by the lawyer will be repaid.[8] The American Bar Association posits that if a lawyer has a relationship with a litigation funder that creates a financial interest for the lawyer . . . it may interfere with the lawyer’s obligation to provide impartial, unbiased advice to the client (the “ABA Report”)[9]. The ABA Report goes on to say that a lawyer with a long-term history of working with a particular funder may have an interest in keeping the funder content which would create a conflict even in the absence of an explicit agreement. The NY RPC, specifically Rule 1.7(a)(2), like the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if “there is significant risk that the lawyer’s professional judgment on behalf of a client will be adversely affected by the lawyer’s own financial, property or other interest.” Additionally, Rule 5.4 of the NY RPC, and its analogous provisions in other jurisdictions, requires that a lawyer maintain independence[10].  Consequently, such lawyer, representing a client in a matter for which litigation funding is sought, in general may be able to represent the client with respect to the litigation funding agreement but should disclose the lawyer’s relationship with the funder and receive the client’s informed written consent. Communication and Confidentiality Rule 1.4 of the NYRP Conduct requires a lawyer to communicate promptly, and provide complete information, to the client regarding the matter, and to reasonably consult with the client about the means to achieve the client’s objectives.[11] Reputable litigation funders are usually careful to provide in the litigation finance documents that the funder will not be involved in discussions between the lawyer and client regarding the matter, and that the funder will not direct or control the litigation. In certain circumstances an inexperienced lawyer may consider involving the funder in discussions about case strategy, but caution is in order. If a party other than client and the attorney is involved in communications involving legal issues or the case, the attorney-client privilege and confidentiality of communications is likely breached and the attorney may be guilty of legal malpractice. Indeed, Rule 1.6 of the NYRPC requires that a lawyer not knowingly reveal confidential information, or use that information to the disadvantage of the client or advantage of the lawyer or a third person, subject to certain exceptions.[12] Conclusion An attorney who represents a client in a matter that is to be funded pursuant to a litigation funding agreement should consider the ethical implications discussed in this Insight, among others, before representing the client in the funding agreement. Counsel would avoid all of the ethical considerations that may arise by referring the client to an outside attorney experienced in litigation finance.
[1] N.Y. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R.1.1.  The California Rules of Professional conduct and the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) also make this the number one rule.  Indeed, all fifty states and the District of Columbia have adopted legal ethics rules based at least in part on the MRPC. [2] N.Y. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R.1.1, Comment [1]. [3] Available here ABA Comment to Rule 1.1 [4] Report to the President by the New York City Bar Association Working Group on Litigation Funding (February 28, 2020). [5] Others includes, without limitation champerty, maintenance, barratry, usury and required disclosures. [6] N.Y. Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, Formal Op. 769 (November 4, 2003). [7] The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion No. 2020-204. [8] Id. At 3. [9] American Bar Association, Informational Report to the House of Delegates Commission on Ethics 20/20. [10] N.Y. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R.5.4. [11] N.Y. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R.1.4(a). [12] N.Y. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R.1.6(a). See also the American Bar Association’s Model Rule 1.6.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Omni Bridgeway Secures EU Victory as Commission Declines Regulation

By John Freund |

Litigation funders scored a major win in Europe this week as the European Commission confirmed it will not pursue new regulations targeting third-party funding. In a decision delivered at the final session of the Commission's High-Level Forum on Justice for Growth, Commissioner Michael McGrath announced that the EU executive will instead focus its efforts on implementing the recently adopted Representative Actions Directive (RAD), which governs collective redress actions brought by consumers and investors.

An article in Law.com notes that the move is being hailed as a significant victory by litigation funders, particularly Omni Bridgeway. Kees de Visser, the firm's Chair of the EMEA Investment Committee, described the decision as a clear endorsement of the litigation funding model and a green light for continued expansion across European jurisdictions. Funders had grown increasingly concerned over the past year that the EU might impose strict rules or licensing requirements, following persistent lobbying by industry critics and certain member states.

Supporters of the Commission’s stance, including the International Legal Finance Association, argue that additional regulation would have harmed access to justice. They contend that third-party funding helps balance the playing field, especially in complex or high-cost litigation, by enabling smaller claimants to pursue valid claims that would otherwise be financially out of reach.

Although concerns around transparency and influence remain part of the wider policy debate, the EU’s current position sends a strong signal that existing legal tools and the RAD framework are sufficient to safeguard the public interest. For funders like Omni Bridgeway, this regulatory reprieve opens the door to deeper engagement in consumer and mass claims across the bloc.

Commercial

Daily Caller Slams Third Party Funding as Funders Face Mounting Media Attacks

By John Freund |

In a harsh opinion piecd, the conservative outlet The Daily Caller blasts third party litigation funding (TPLF), casting the practice as a “scam” that feeds frivolous lawsuits, burdens the economy, and unfairly enriches hidden investors at the expense of all Americans.

The op-ed, penned by Stephen Moore, draws a dire picture: trial lawyers allegedly “suck blood out of the economy” through class action suits that generate millions for attorneys but little for the plaintiffs. The piece points to numbers — a projected $500 billion hit annually to the U.S. economy, and tort cost growth more than double the inflation rate — to argue that the scale of litigation has outpaced any legitimate quest for justice.

Where TPLF comes in, according to Moore, is as the lubrication for what he sees as a booming lawsuit industry. He claims that unknown investors donate capital to lawsuits in exchange for outsized shares of any settlement, not the injured party. These hidden financial interests, he argues, distort the incentives for litigation, encouraging suits where there is no “real” corporate villain, a concern especially pointed at class action and litigation targeting major media or tech firms.

Moore cites roughly $2 billion in new financing arranged in 2024 and a fund pool of $16.1 billion total assets as evidence TPLF is growing rapidly. He endorses the Litigation Transparency Act, legislation introduced by Darrell Issa, which would require disclosure of such funding arrangements in federal civil cases. In Moore’s view, transparency would strip the “cloak of secrecy” from investors and curb what he describes as “jackpot justice,” lawsuits driven less by justice than by profit.

But the tone is unmistakably critical. Moore frames the practice as a parasitic industry that drains capital, discourages investment, and suppresses wages. He cites recent reforms in states like Florida under Ron DeSantis as evidence that limiting litigation can lead to lower insurance premiums and greater economic growth.

For legal funders, this op-ed and others like it underscore a growing media trend: skepticism not just of frivolous lawsuits but of the very model of third party funding. To preserve reputation and legitimacy, funders may need to do more than quietly finance cases. They may need to publicly engage, explain their business model, and advocate for regulatory standards that ensure transparency while preserving access to justice.

Commercial

Global Litigation Funding Thrives, Yet Regulation Still Looms

By John Freund |

The global litigation funding market is experiencing strong growth, yet lingering regulatory uncertainties continue to shadow its trajectory. According to the Chambers Global Practice Guide, the market was valued at approximately US $17.5 billion (AUD $26.9 billion) in March 2025 and is projected to surge to US $67.2 billion (AUD $103 billion) by 2037.

An article in LSJ states that major drivers of this expansion include rising legal costs, complex cross-border commercial litigation, and increased demand from small and mid-sized law firms seeking external funding to build out specialist teams. While funders embrace the growth opportunity, critics raise concerns around transparency, claimant autonomy, and potential conflicts of interest.

In Australia, a notable development occurred on 6 August 2025 when the High Court of Australia in Kain v R&B Investments Pty Ltd clarified that federal courts may make common fund or funding equalisation orders for the benefit of third-party funders (but not for solicitors) in class actions—except in Victoria, which still allows contingency fees. This decision is seen as a win for litigation funders, providing greater clarity across most Australian jurisdictions. Australia also saw regulatory reform in December 2022 when the Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations came into force, exempting litigation funding schemes from the MIS/AFSL regime under specific conditions and emphasising the mitigation of conflicts of interest as a compliance feature.

On the regulatory front, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is considering extending relief instruments that exempt certain litigation funding arrangements from the National Credit Code and financial services licensing until March 2030. Meanwhile in the UK, the proposed Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill 2024 seeks to remove the classification of third-party funding agreements as “damages-based agreements” under the Courts & Legal Services Act – a move which proponents say will enable greater access to justice and clear the path for global funders.