King and Spalding is facing a malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit from former client David Pisor, a Chicago-based entrepreneur, who claims the law firm pushed him into a predatory litigation funding deal and massively overbilled him for legal services. The complaint, filed in Illinois state court, accuses the firm of inflating its rates midstream and steering Pisor toward a funding agreement that primarily served the firm's financial interests.

An article in Law.com reports that the litigation stems from King and Spalding's representation of Pisor and his company, PSIX LLC, in a 2021 dispute. According to the complaint, the firm directed him to enter a funding arrangement with an entity referred to in court as “Defendant SC220163,” which is affiliated with litigation funder Statera Capital Funding. Pisor alleges that after securing the funding, King and Spalding tied its fee structure to it, raised hourly rates, and billed over 3,000 hours across 30 staff and attorneys within 11 months, resulting in more than $3.5 million in fees.

The suit further alleges that many of these hours were duplicative, non-substantive, or billed at inflated rates, with non-lawyer work charged at partner-level fees. Pisor claims he was left with minimal control over his case and business due to the debt incurred through the funding arrangement, despite having a company valued at over $130 million at the time.

King and Spalding, along with the associated litigation funder, declined to comment. The lawsuit brings multiple claims including legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Illinois’ Consumer Legal Funding Act.

An article in Carrier Management highlights a rare direct dialogue between litigation finance leaders and insurance executives aimed at clearing up persistent misconceptions about the role of legal finance in claims costs and social inflation.

Burford Capital’s David Perla and Parabellum Capital’s Dai Wai Chin Feman underscore that much of the current debate stems from confusion over what legal finance actually is and what it is not. The pair participated in an Insurance Insider Executive Business Club roundtable with property and casualty carriers and stakeholders, arguing that the litigation finance industry’s core activities are misunderstood and mischaracterized. They contend that legal finance should not be viewed as monolithic and that policy debates often conflate fundamentally different segments of the market, leading to misdirected criticism and calls for boycotts.

Perla and Feman break legal finance into three distinct categories: commercial funding (non-recourse capital for complex business-to-business disputes), consumer funding (non-recourse advances in personal injury contexts), and law firm lending (recourse working capital loans).

Notably, commercial litigation finance often intersects with contingent risk products like judgment preservation and collateral protection insurance, demonstrating symbiosis rather than antagonism with insurers. They emphasize that commercial funders focus on meritorious, high-value cases and that these activities bear little resemblance to the injury litigation insurers typically cite when claiming legal finance drives inflation.

The authors also tackle common industry narratives head-on, challenging assumptions about funder influence on verdicts, market scale, and settlement incentives. They suggest that insurers’ concerns are driven less by legal finance itself and more by issues like mass tort exposure, opacity of investment vehicles, and alignment with defense-oriented lobbying groups.