LinkedIn Co-founder, Reid Hoffman, Funding Lawsuit Against Former President Trump
Whilst the litigation industry has continued to grow in both the scale and volume of activity in recent years, it remains a sector that the wider public is largely unaware of, and most cases proceed unnoticed by mainstream media. However, a notable exception to this trend appeared last week when it was revealed that a lawsuit being brought against former President Donald J. Trump is being partly financed by Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn. An article in The New York Times provides an overview of this development in the rape lawsuit being brought against Mr. Trump by E. Jean Carrol, an American journalist and author. Mr. Hoffman’s involvement in funding the litigation was only revealed after it was ‘disclosed in a letter to a judge’ by Mr. Trump’s lawyers, who had been informed about this third-party funding by Ms. Carroll’s lawyers earlier in the week. According to Dmitri Mehlhorn, an adviser to Mr. Hoffman, the funding for this lawsuit originated through a grant made by Hoffman’s non-profit to Kaplan Hecker & Fink, the law firm handling Ms. Carroll’s case. Whilst not originally intended to fund this specific lawsuit, Ms. Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta A. Kaplan, requested that the money be used to fund this litigation in September 2020. Notably, Mr. Hoffman is also part of the ‘PayPal Mafia’ group of business leaders and investors, whose ranks include fellow billionaire Peter Thiel, who famously financed Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker Media that led to the company’s bankruptcy. Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued in the letter sent to the court that the trial should be postponed for one month, in order to allow their team to investigate the funding. The judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, refused the requested postponement, but stated that he would permit Mr. Trump’s lawyers to pursue a ‘narrow inquiry into the funding issue’. It may be notable for other similar cases which have received third-party funding, that the disclosure of the financing did not create an opportunity for the defendant to further delay the trial.