Last year, the New York City Bar Association issued an advisory opinion suggesting that funding agreements between lawyers and third party funders violates ABA Model Rule 5.4(a), which prohibits fee sharing with non-lawyers. The opinion has sparked furious debate (and much consternation) in the litigation funding community ever since. But practically speaking, how has the NYC Bar’s opinion impacted law firm funding? 

Recently, law firm Kirkland & Ellis announced a ten-fold increase in investment dollars towards contingency-fee plaintiff-side claims. Alternative fee arrangements have been the most profitable component of the law firm thus far, so management figures ‘why not roll the dice’ on what’s already been working? The question now is: is Kirkland’s approach a harbinger of things to come? And if so, how will this impact litigation funders down the road? 

Dividex, the international securities class action broker and case manager, wanted in on a Novo Nordisk class action after the stock shed over $50B in the wake of fraud allegations. The only problem? No litigation funders would bite, given that the Danish Pharma company would have to face the scales of justice on its home turf (international securities actions can no longer be tried in the U.S., pursuant to a 2010 Supreme Court decision). And since funding is needed to get an international securities action off the ground, the deal was dead in the water. Until, that is, Dividex packaged the deal into its own version of a portfolio funding arrangement. 

GoFundMe recently cancelled an Australian rugby player’s crowdfunded legal campaign, and the story made international headlines. Now some experts are scrutinizing the ethical and practical concerns of crowdfunding litigation; some of which will sound very familiar to litigation funders, yet others are unique to the crowdfunding niche.