Day one of the two-day 2021 LF Dealmakers conference has officially concluded. The day included a keynote address from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, six panel discussions, and a host of networking opportunities. The initial panel discussion was titled "State of the Litigation Finance Industry: Innovations & Outlook." The panel was moderated by Annie Pavia, Senior Legal Analyst at Bloomberg Law, and featured the following panelists:

• Brandon Baer, Founder & CIO, Contingency Capital
• Fred Fabricant, Managing Partner, Fabricant
• Michael Nicolas, Co-Founder & Managing Director, Longford Capital
• Andrew Woltman, Principal & Co-Founder, Statera Capital

The discussion began with big picture trends regarding the economic downturn, which a lot of people posited would result in a boost to Legal Services and the Litigation Funding industry. The panelists all weighed in: Brandon Baer explained that the case pipeline has been extremely robust. There is strong origination, and a lot of need from law firms for capital. Fred Fabricant explained that from law firm side, it’s been the busiest time in his career in terms of case load. More opportunities have come to his attention in last year and a half than ever before, with things being very active in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. And the quality of the opportunities is higher. New players are in the market, and existing players have raised more money than ever before. Michael Nicolas added that he’s seen an increase across all different sectors – law firms (both those who have used funding previously and those who have never used funding before), and clients (facing extreme demands stemming from COVID-related issues). Longford manages over $1Bn in AUM, so they have a lot of flexibility in terms of investment potential. Andrew Woltman ended the discussion by noting how comfortable law firms and clients are becoming with litigation finance. Structurally they are being more proactive about approaching fund managers than ever before. The panel all agreed that demand is strong across the board when it comes to case types. Capital deployment is not a problem here, and the panelists expressed hope that this trend would continue, and that clients will continue to recognize the value that funders bring to the table. In terms of current challenges the industry is facing, duration and collectability are obvious issues, but these are leading to certain efficiencies–like courts learning to be more efficient in order to address duration risk. So there is a silver lining here. At this point, Annie Pavia, the moderator, switched gears and asked Michael Nicolas about Longford’s $50MM funding deal with Willkie Farr. Nicolas acknowledged the longstanding relationship between the two firms, and how that developed into a $50MM financing arrangement. Willkie also brings a lot of commercial matters to the table, which helps Longford diversify away from its core focus on IP matters. Nicolas also mentioned that they went public with the deal in order to be fully transparent to Willkie’s clients, and make them aware that Longford’s funding is possible for their claims. The question of disclosure then popped up.  Will the disclosure of the funding relationship lead to unnecessary discovery sideshows in Willkie claims?  Nicolas does not believe the publicity of the relationship will hamper any Willkie claims, and that the trend line favors courts finding discovery irrelevant, where litigation funding is concerned (in most cases). While he understands this may prompt some questions, Longford isn’t particularly worried about the consequences here. Of course, most funds still keep their partnerships private, so Longford’s decision to publicize its relationship with Willkie may perhaps be a turning point for the industry—could less opacity be around the corner? Nicolas believes we will see more transparency as the asset class continues to grow. The rest of the day featured panels across a range of topics, including legal and regulatory challenges in the U.S., and changes in law firm and contingency fee models. One discussion on "How CFOs View Legal Assets: Data & Insights from a Recent Survey," featured Kelly Daley, Director at Burford Capital, and Bruce MacEwen, President of Adam Smith, Esq. MacEwen asked an interesting question regarding law firms’ attitudes–law departments and finance departments typically don’t talk to each other. So how do conversations with law firms go, compared with conservations with corporate CFOs. Daley explained that conversations with law firms are different than those with corporations, because the assets at law firms are human labor, so it can be harder for law firms to leverage that than it is for corporations to leverage abstract assets. Law firms take their time more personally, so the conversation with law firms is more about risk shifting than with cash flows. Legal finance does both of these, but there is different value applied to each depending on what specific assets you value. MacEwen agreed, and followed up with the note that it can be tough for clients to define the value they get from a law firm, and therefore they are always looking for ways to get discounted rates. Litigation funding can play a part in that… in ameliorating the concerns clients have about overpaying for legal services. All in all, there was a lot of ground covered in the first day of the LF Dealmakers conference. And with the plethora of networking opportunities (both digitally and in-person), the event surely struck a powerful chord with all those in attendance.

The LF Dealmakers conference kicked off this morning with a keynote address from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The address was titled "Litigation Finance: Survey of a Shifting Landscape," and covered four main issues: ethics, fee sharing, disclosure regulations and privileged communications between funder and attorneys. Judge Scheindlin began on the topic of ethical issues, the three most common of which boil down to competence, confidentiality and truthfulness. She explained the common pitfalls that funders need to be aware of, including how different states treat confidentiality issues, for example. Scheindlin asserted that the ethical concerns most have about the industry do not pose any serious threat to its future growth potential. In terms of fee sharing, Scheindlin pointed out how bar associations play a critical role in drafting and interpreting codes of conduct, which are then adopted by the states. She noted the New York bar's opinion on Rule 5.4, which found that litigation funding violates the fee sharing restriction. This was a controversial opinion, for obvious reasons. In fact, there was such an outcry, that the city bar created a working group around litigation funding, to make recommendations around ethics and principles. The working group addressed the realities of litigation funding, and whether disclosure of funding should be required in litigation and arbitration. In the end, the working group offered two proposals. The first being that the funder can share fees with the client, provided that the funder remains independent and does not influence case decisions by participating in the claim. The second being that the funder can participate in the claim, if it benefits the client. And the client can provide informed consent to disclose confidential information to the funder (Scheindlin noted that she favors the second proposal). Neither proposal has yet been adopted, though Judge Scheindlin believes Rule 5.4 regarding fee sharing will be modified in NY, based on these recommendations. It remains to be seen which proposal will win out. On the issue of control, which is related to fee sharing, Scheindlin explained that many funding agreements give the funder the right to approve the selection of counsel.  Some may view this as control, but really the funders just want to ensure the counsel is adequate to handle the claim. In terms of disclosure, Scheindlin pointed out how 12 states have passed legislation on litigation funding, with another 11 proposing legislation. Most involve consumer funding. Only Wisconsin specifically includes financing of commercial claims. So it's clear the focus is on consumer cases, but no one knows where this will go.  There is a robust debate on the subject of disclosure, with many industry opponents pushing to reveal the identity of the funder, as well as the terms of the funding agreement. There is a lot of disagreement on the various avenues that can be taken regarding the issue of disclosure, so it will be interesting to see how this issue will develop. On privilege, Scheindlin noted the common interest exception in regard to sharing privileged information, and how courts are split as to whether this applies to litigation funders. Is a shared commercial interest the same as a common legal interest? This is the question at hand.  However, most courts have found that privileged documents are protected by work product, where a funder is concerned. Ultimately, though, an NDA or confidentiality agreement is likely needed here to ensure that work product applies. So while there are plenty of minefields, in terms of issues that could upend TPLF, Judge Scheindlin feels confident that funding will prevail in the end. To quote Judge Scheindlin: "There are always those who will oppose new ways of doing things.  Those who seek to restrict TPLF… are in my opinion, merely afraid of the level playing field that such funding creates. I don’t think they will succeed. TPLF is now an accepted part of the legal landscape, and is here to stay."