The Center on Civil Justice at New York University School of Law mission is dedicated to the U.S. civil justice system and the continued fulfillment of its purpose. The Center brings together the unmatched strengths of the NYU Law faculty in the fields of procedure and complex litigation with the sophisticated practitioners and judges who make up our Board of Advisers.  Together we endeavor to support our civil courts as a place for people to fairly and efficiently resolve their problems and access justice.

The Center on Civil Justice at NYU School of Law will host a one-day conference on October 28, 2024 on the subject of legislative efforts to regulate third-party legal funding with the goal of connecting the debates on key legal funding issues taking place in academia and among practitioners, lobbyists and legislators, in the US and in Europe.  

The conference will consist of three panels, each focusing on a different legal funding reform effort. These include U.S. legislative efforts to regulate commercial litigation financing and consumer legal funding, in addition to an examination of European and other international legislative attempts to regulate third-party funding. The bill sponsors will be invited to present, along with experts on the topics the bill covers.

The event will take place on October 28, 2024, from 9am - 3:30pm.  We encourage everyone to attend in-person at Greenberg Lounge of Vanderbilt Hall, 40 Washington Square South, NY, NY 10012.

For those who cannot do so, the event will also be livestreamed via Zoom.  A link will be sent out to everyone who RSVPs.

The event is free, and we will be applying for CLE credit. 

Register Here: https://forms.gle/Z5UuQcB2geNhRe7dA.

9:15 AM – 9:30 AM – Opening Remarks

9:30 AM – 11:00 AM - Panel 1: Disclosure of Commercial Litigation Financing Agreements

While much of the state legislation enacted on third-party litigation finance has focused on consumer legal funding, states and the federal government have begun to think about the regulation of commercial litigation funding as well.  Specifically, the issue of whether, under what circumstances, and to what extent to disclose commercial third-party funding has been one of the most significant policy questions facing the industry for years.   Legislation has been introduced or passed in West Virginia, Wisconsin, and US Congress regarding disclosure of commercial funding agreements, and we will discuss these bills and others and how they will impact the commercial funding landscape.

11:15 AM – 12:45 PM – Panel 2: New York A.115 - Consumer Funding

Much, if not most, state legislation focuses specifically on consumer legal funding and not commercial litigation financing.  New York State alone has five different such bills.  This panel chooses to focus on A.115, which has passed the New York State Senate but not the Assembly – the bill that has so far advanced the furthest.  This bill caps returns to funders at the military lending rate.  Other bills do not place such a cap at all but require full disclosure of the contract.  This panel will discuss what is the best way forward to regulate the product in New York and across the country.

12:45 PM – 1:30 PM – Lunch

1:30 PM – 3:00 PM – Panel 3: EU P9_TA (2022) 0308 - International Legislation

In 2022, the EU Parliament adopted a resolution to introduce legislation creating minimum standards for third-party funding in the EU.  The European Commission has yet to submit a formal proposal for the EU Parliament and European Commission to consider.  However, the principals outlined in the resolution highlight many significant discussion points within the industry and demonstrate the state of international regulation of the industry.

3:00 PM – 3:15 PM – Closing Remarks

RSVP for the event here: https://forms.gle/Z5UuQcB2geNhRe7dA.

In the most significant demonstration of concern for secretive third-party litigation funding (TPLF) to date, 124 companies, including industry leaders in healthcare, technology, financial services, insurance, energy, transportation, automotive and other sectors today sent a letter to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules urging creation of a new rule that would require a uniform process for the disclosure of TPLF in federal cases nationwide. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules will meet on October 10 and plans to discuss whether to move ahead with the development of a new rule addressing TPLF.

The letter, organized by Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ), comes at a time when TPLF has grown into a 15 billion dollar industry and invests funding in an increasing number of cases which, in turn, has triggered a growing number of requests from litigants asking courts to order the disclosure of funding agreements in their cases. The letter contends that courts are responding to these requests with a “variety of approaches and inconsistent practices [that] is creating a fragmented and incoherent procedural landscape in the federal courts.” It states that a rule is “particularly needed to supersede the misplaced reliance on ex parte conversations; ex parte communications are strongly disfavored by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges because they are both ineffective in educating courts and highly unfair to the parties who are excluded.”

Reflecting the growing concern with undisclosed TPLF and its impact on the justice system, LCJ and the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) submitted a separate detailed comment letter to the Advisory Committee that also advocates for a “simple and predictable rule for TPLF disclosure.”

Alex Dahl, LCJ’s General Counsel said: “The Advisory Committee should propose a straightforward, uniform rule for TPLF disclosure. Absent such a rule, the continued uncertainty and court-endorsed secrecy of non-party funding will further unfairly skew federal civil litigation. The support from 124 companies reflects both the importance of a uniform disclosure rule and the urgent need for action.”

The corporate letter advances a number of additional reasons why TPLF disclosure is needed in federal courts:

Control: The letter argues that parties “cannot make informed decisions without knowing the stakeholders who control the litigation… and cannot understand the control features of a TPLF agreement without reading the agreement.” While many funding agreements state that the funder does not control the litigation strategy, companies are increasingly concerned that they use their growing financial leverage to exercise improper influence.

Procedural safeguards: The companies maintain that the safeguards embodied in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) cannot work without disclosure of TPLF.  One example is that courts and parties today are largely unaware of and unable to address conflicts between witnesses, the court, and parties on the one hand, and non-parties on the other, when these funding agreements and the financial interests behind them remain largely secret.

Appraisal of the case: Finally, the letter reasons that the FRCP already require the disclosure of corporate insurance policies which the Advisory Committee explained in 1970 “will enable counsel for both sides to make the same realistic appraisal of the case, so that settlement and litigation strategy are based on knowledge and not speculation.” The companies maintain that this very same logic should also require the disclosure of TPLF given its growing role and impact on federal civil litigation.

Besides the corporate letter and joint comment, LCJ is intensifying its efforts to rally companies and practitioners to Ask About TPLF in their cases, and to press for a uniform federal rule to require disclosure. LCJ will be launching a new Ask About TPLF website that will serve as a hub for its new campaign later this month.

On September 26th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled "Spotlight on Insurance." The panel discussion featured David Kerstein (DK), Founder and Managing Director at Arcadia Finance, Michael Perich (MP), Director, Head of Litigation Insurance at Lockton Companies, Steve Jones (SJ), Managing Director, M&A, Litigation and Tax Practice at Gallagher, and Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer and Managing Director, Winward U.K. Limited. The panel was moderated by Jim Batson (JB), Chief Operating Officer at Westfleet Advisors.

Below are some key takeaways from the event:

JB: As Arcadia is a relatively new player in the litigation finance space, how has Arcadia incorporated insurance products into your underwriting and claims selection processes?

DK: As we were raising capital earlier this year, we explored using insurance to wrap a future portfolio, to potentially help drive fundraising and lower cost of capital. We weren't able to do that as a first-time manager, but it's something we'd like to explore in the future. We're currently exploring traditional insurance products like JPI, and wrapping portfolios that may be on the edge of our mandate, and wrapping them in insurance would help us get to 'yes.'

JB: So wrapping portfolios will help you look at some deals you might not otherwise consider?

DK: Exactly.

JB: Steve, can you give us an overview of the current Legal Insurance market? Especially focusing on recent developments in Capital Protection Insurance.

SJ: At the moment, I'm seeing a lot of innovation, so it seems like no two deals are the same, as there is a lot of creativity to get deals done. Very high submission rates, which probably suggests that knowledge of the products is increasing. And I see insurers and funders collaborating. It's very seldom we see funders approach portfolio deals without thinking of insurance, and capital protection insurance (CPI) is the most obvious example of that. The net result of all of that is increased choice for clients, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

JB: Jeremy, how do you view the relationship between funders and insurers? Some have thought of insurers as competitors to litigation funders - an example is in the appeal context, where the client has the option of taking funding and de-risking immediately, or taking insurance and de-risking at conclusion of the matter. How do you see the relationship between insurers and funders evolving?

JM: I view it very much as a collaborative venture, for at least two specific reasons: One is the competition appeal tribunal (CAT) in the UK. You couldn't go into the CAT without the support of the insurers. And that morphs into the concept of co-funding, which is growing. And you wouldn't be able to do this without insurers, particularly when you've got a policy with an insurer and you're invited to participate with somebody else, it might be syndicated with more than one funder-- all the insurers are going to have positions in relation to that and you're not going to get it off the ground without the insurers involved. It really is a team effort, as cases have lots of ups and downs.

Without a good relationship with an insurer, you're not going to get off the ground. And particularly in a client-facing situation, you want insurers and funders to be speaking with the same voice, and often you'll see in points of tension where clients and law firms sometimes, will try to play the 'divide and rule game' with insurers and funders. And we need to speak with a unified voice if we can. And I think that will grow in time, where insurers will play a bigger role in both the front and back end of a transaction.

JB: Michael, from your perspective, what are you seeing as the most interesting trends in terms of the intersection of insurance and litigation funding?

MP: Litigation insurance has been in the transaction space for quite a long time. What we've been seeing lately is a substantial uptick in deal flow based on increased awareness and knowledge of the product base. Some of that deal flow are things that are not insurable (in the US market) - things like portfolios of personal injury or mass tort cases. Those won't be insurable in the US. But we're seeing more IP and antitrust cases, and more interest around building a sustainable market that involves portfolio risks and complex pieces of commercial litigation that helps make a more efficient transaction for everybody. And that's where all of the parties are getting more aligned. So over the past six months, we've been noticing a lot more collaboration and innovation lately, which is a good thing.

For the full panel discussion, please click here.

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, has grown significantly since its founding in 2009. As part of ongoing recognition of the growth in legal finance and Burford’s industry leadership as it celebrates its 15^th anniversary, it today shares data from its own performance and releases new research based on one-on-one phone interviews with senior lawyers at global law firms who have a front seat to growing awareness and use of legal finance by their clients and firms.

Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, says: “Jon Molot and I started Burford 15 years ago because of economic inefficiencies we saw in the business of law. We’re delighted that our business has since grown from niche to mainstream and is now truly ‘corporate finance for law.’ From day one, our priority has been to listen to clients’ needs, and as a result, we have a suite of tools that provide liquidity, de-risk contingent matters and enable more strategic affirmative recoveries. Burford has earned a reputation as the go-to firm for legal finance, and we’re excited about the road ahead. We’ll keep our focus on clients, innovation and advancing the business of law.”

Data from Burford’s business confirms its performance as a legal finance industry leader:

• Exceptional growth in our business: Burford began in 2009 as a $130 million fund; today, Burford has a portfolio of more than $7 billion.

• Increased demand for what we do: In 2009, Burford committed $11 million to legal finance assets; in 2023, that number was $1.2 billion on a Group-wide basis.

• Growing relevance to sophisticated businesses, with innovation to address corporate balance sheet and P&L needs: More than half our business now comes from corporate clients. Many seek monetizations ― where Burford provides businesses immediate capital by advancing some of the expected entitlement of a pending claim, judgment or award ― and we have committed very substantial capital over the past five years to monetization deals from $10 million to $325 million.

• Development of human capital and proprietary data: In 2009, we had five employees; today, we have seven offices and more than 150 employees. In addition, Burford has built an industry-leading proprietary database of commercial dispute outcomes and tools that harness machine learning, data analytics and artificial intelligence to benefit our clients and our performance.

• NYSE-listed in 2020: We have been public since 2009 and have been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 2020.

Similarly, research released today by Burford reveals that legal finance has exploded in visibility and value with lawyers. Key findings include:

• 82% of law firm lawyers surveyed claim to have used legal finance, a ninefold increase since Burford first asked law firm lawyers this question in 2012. Although confirmation bias may result in overstatement of actual use, even accounting for this, legal finance’s enormous increased stated use reflects its visibility and acceptance in the business of law.

• Lawyers are using legal finance in more sophisticated ways: Many law firm lawyers affirm that legal finance is now used to strategically manage risk rather than because clients lack funds. Law firm lawyers and their clients see legal finance as a strategic tool across commercial litigation and arbitration as well as more complex financial structures like portfolio financing and funded patent divestitures.

• An Am Law 50 law firm partner said: “For some of the bigger clients, you see more portfolio deals rather than single transactions. Not many companies start with a portfolio, but as they see success, both law firms and corporations are pursuing portfolio transactions.”

• Law firms are embracing legal finance to fuel growth, as more than eight in ten of those surveyed report a more positive perception of legal finance than 15 years ago.

• A Global 100 law firm partner said: “The client's mindset has completely changed, and they are now coming to their outside counsel and asking for litigation funding options. Offering the use of funding and using it is a validation of the merit of a claim and is a good pressure point.”

• Law firm lawyers confirm that corporate clients are increasingly using legal finance, as 82% of those surveyed said the use of legal finance by corporations has increased over this period.

• A litigation boutique partner said: “Litigation is a bottom-line cost. If corporations can spread that risk by sharing it with an outside capital provider, CFOs want to explore that option, especially because corporations hate litigation expenses. They are much more open to it if they can get some or all of it covered by legal finance.”

The research is based on one-on-one phone interviews conducted by Ari Kaplan Advisors with 44 senior lawyers from global law firms in August and September 2024. The participants included partners, department heads and practice group chairs. Of these respondents, 34% came from AmLaw 100 law firms and 30% from Global 100 law firms.