Legal and Ethical Considerations When Navigating Litigation Finance

By John Freund |

The following post was contributed by Jeff Manley, Chief Operating Officer of Armadillo Litigation Funding

In litigation finance, especially in mass torts and class actions, trust and success hinge on unwavering ethical practice and legal compliance. For attorneys and financial professionals navigating this complex field, a steadfast commitment to upholding ethical standards is not just ideal—it’s imperative. This article delves into the crucial considerations that must guide the intricate relationship between legal funding and professional integrity.

The Importance of Law Firm Independence

Law firm independence is paramount when it comes to funding arrangements, particularly within the complex sectors of mass torts and class actions. The imperative to maintain this independence while engaging with external funding sources necessitates a sophisticated approach to partnership. Firms must ally with financiers who not only understand the legal and ethical implications inherent to such cases but who also value the firm’s autonomy in decision-making processes. A skilled financier can guide firms through the nuances of these arrangements, ensuring that the terms of any financial agreement bolster the firm’s ability to act in its clients’ best interests without external influence. Drafting agreements with a clear delineation of roles and expectations, without compromising the firm’s command over legal strategy, is not solely a matter of due diligence—it’s a strategic endeavor to uphold the integrity and efficacy of the legal services provided.

Managing Conflicts of Interest

Managing conflicts of interest requires a collaborative effort between law firms and their funding partners. Identifying and mitigating potential conflicts at the intersection of funders, firms, and clients necessitates a united approach. Together, firms and funders should conduct thorough reviews of funding arrangements to spotlight areas where interests might diverge, ensuring that neither the firm’s allegiance to its client nor the client’s best interests are compromised. Adopting a joint strategy that aligns with ABA Model Rule 1.7 on conflicts of interest can fortify this alliance. This partnership approach to conflict management might include establishing shared guidelines for conflict checks, mutual disclosures to involved parties, and embedding protective measures in funding agreements that prioritize client outcomes. A cooperative oversight mechanism, possibly in the form of a committee comprising representatives from both the firm and the funder, can serve as a vigilant guardian of ethical integrity and client dedication, fostering a proactive culture of transparency and ethical vigilance.

Crafting of Finance Agreements

Moving into the structuring of financing agreements, it’s vital that financiers and law firms unite to craft solutions (and operating agreements) that are ethically grounded and legally sound, starting with shared due diligence. Both parties engage in a transparent exchange to ensure all legal and ethical considerations are meticulously evaluated, laying a groundwork that prioritizes the client’s best interests and compliance with regulations. The agreement’s structuring phase is an exercise in precision, balancing financial objectives with stringent ethical standards. Following the execution of the agreement, a concerted monitoring effort is essential to ensure ongoing compliance and address any ethical issues proactively. This cooperative stance not only fosters trust and transparency between the financier and the firm but also upholds the dignity of the legal profession and the rights of the clients they serve. This endeavor necessitates guidance from a trusted and sophisticated financier, ensuring that the partnership is built on a foundation of expertise and integrity.

Regulatory Compliance

Navigating this domain requires acute awareness of both state and federal regulations. This environment demands that law firms and financiers possess a deep understanding of the legal intricacies that define their operational landscape. The diversity of regulations across jurisdictions necessitates a partnership with well-respected funders, who bring sophisticated guidance to the table. Their expertise is invaluable in steering through the complexities of compliance, ensuring that practices are not only current but also anticipatory of the legal field’s dynamic evolution.

The future of litigation finance hinges on adaptability to regulatory changes, which are increasingly influenced by the sector’s growing recognition and its impact on access to justice. The call for enhanced clarity in regulations and the push for stringent disclosure practices indicate a trend towards standardization across the board. Law firms, guided by seasoned financiers, must remain vigilant and adaptable, ready to adjust their strategies to maintain compliance and ethical integrity. This proactive stance is crucial not just for navigating today’s regulatory challenges but also for shaping the future of ethical litigation finance.

Conclusion

In the rapidly shifting landscape of litigation finance, the value of a partnership with a well-respected financier cannot be overstated. Such collaborations are critical not only for steering through the regulatory complexities but also for shielding a firm against potential legal liabilities, including malpractice claims. As the industry continues to evolve, the guidance of experienced financiers becomes an indispensable asset, enabling law firms to anticipate changes, adapt strategies, and maintain compliance. This partnership does more than protect; it empowers firms to thrive amidst challenges, ensuring that their commitment to justice and client service is upheld. In the end, the journey through the ethical and regulatory intricacies of litigation finance is one best undertaken with a trusted financier by your side, crafting a future where the legal profession and its principles stand resilient.

About the author

Commercial

View All

Omni Bridgeway Accuses Apple of “Blatant Attempt to Arbitrage the Courts”

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ recently covered, the world of patent litigation funding has yet again ignited a high-profile rift between a global corporation and a litigation funder, with Apple looking to compel Omni Bridgeway to answer its subpoena. This ongoing dispute shows no signs of cooling off as the funder has now filed a stout opposition to Apple’s request for the court to compel compliance with the subpoena, which Omni Bridgeway says “fails on all counts.”

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers the latest developments in the fight between Apple and Omni Bridgeway over the former’s attempt to subpoena the funder for information around its supposed involvement in a patent infringement case. On Monday, Omni Bridgeway filed its opposition to the Apple’s motion to compel compliance with the subpoena, in which it argued that rather trying to resolve the two parties’ differences over discovery, “Apple has rushed to compel non-party Omni to engage  in  burdensome  discovery  efforts  based  on  Apple’s  unfounded  speculation  that Omni “should have” or “likely” engaged in actions Apple deems relevant.”

In a filing that spans over 20 pages, Omni Bridgeway argued that “in the seven months since it issued a subpoena to Omni, Apple has refused to explain the relevance of the discovery it seeks.” The funder accused Apple of “a blatant attempt to arbitrage the courts,  avoid  addressing  the  question  of  relevance  before  the  trial  court,  and  apply  the  actual  facts  and  binding  authority  of  the underlying litigation.”

The fiery response to Apple’s motion included claims that the company’s attempts were “futile” and that it had “cherry-picked quotes from factually and legally distinct cases” to support its arguments. 

Omni Bridgeway’s full opposition to the motion to compel can be read here.

Dr. Stephan Klebes Joins Deminor’s Hamburg Team To Expand Its Leading Position In The German Litigation Funding Market

By Harry Moran |

Deminor welcomes Dr. Stephan Klebes to the Hamburg team to expand its leading position in the German litigation funding market

Dr. Stephan Klebes adds experience and expertise in complex commercial disputes, investment recovery cases and antitrust actions to the Deminor team - especially in the fields of arbitration and capital markets law.

Deminor is pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Stephan Klebes as Senior Legal Counsel. With the arrival of Stephan, a further experienced litigator joins the established team of Dr. Malte Stübinger (General Counsel Germany), Patrick Rode (Senior Legal Counsel) and Tim Willing (Senior Legal Counsel).

Dr. Stübinger commented on Stephan's arrival:

“With Stephan, we are gaining a highly qualified colleague with a broad legal background who will actively support our further growth in Germany and brings the Deminor mindset with him. An excellent addition to our team that emphasises our strong commitment to the German market.”

Stephan Klebes was admitted to the German Bar in 2021 and has broad experience in litigating and advising on cross-border disputes before international arbitral tribunals and state courts, with a particular focus on general commercial disputes and investment recovery cases. Prior to joining Deminor, he was an associate with the specialised litigation law firm Quinn Emmanuel where he represented companies in various types of arbitration proceedings, as well as complex investment recovery claims before state courts.

Erik Bomans, Chief Executive Officer, added:

“I wish to echo my colleagues' sentiments by congratulating Stephan on joining Deminor’s growing Hamburg team. Stephan’s wide-ranging legal expertise is a welcome arrival, and I am confident they will complement General Counsel Dr Malte Stübinger and his fellow Senior Legal Counsels. I look forward to his contribution to Deminor and our clients as we strengthen our position as a Chambers & Partners Band 1 Ranked provider of litigation funding solutions in Germany.”

Stephan Klebes studied law and economics at the University of Mannheim (LL.B., First State Examination) and the University of Cape Town, South Africa (LL.M. in Alternative Dispute Resolution). He then obtained his doctorate at the University of Osnabrück at the chair of Prof Dr Mary-Rose McGuire on an arbitration-related topic and completed his clerkship at the Higher Regional Court of Celle.

On joining Deminor, Stephan comments:

“I am delighted to be working with Deminor to further advance the field of litigation funding in Germany and Europe. The possibility of third-party financing of litigation and arbitration still has a lot of potential. Deminor will certainly be able to further expand its leading role in the German market on the basis of its strongly value-based approach. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to contribute to this mission.”

Dr. Klebes was recognised by Best Lawyers in the category "Ones to Watch 2024" in the field of Arbitration and Mediation.

Read More

FinLegal Announces £2M in Funding from Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II

By Harry Moran |

An article in Business Live covers the announcement from Sheffield-based FinLegal that it has raised £2 million in funding from the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II (NPIF II). The legal technology company offers a platform that can be used for the class actions or high volume small claims management, utilising automation and AI to increase efficiency and reduce costs. FinLegal plans to use the new investment to expand its operations and double its workforce.

The funding from NPIF II is a result of the fund’s mission to help small and medium sized businesses in the North of England scale up their operations, with the £660m fund providing loans that range between £25,000 and £2 million, or equity investments of up to £5 million. FinLegal specifically received funds that are managed in part by NPIF II and in part by Mercia Asset Management.

Steven Shinn, founder of FinLegal, provided the following comment on the announcement:

“The claims market is ripe for a platform like ours. Many claims are run on a no-win no-fee basis and increasingly there are fee caps, so operating costs are critical. Our solution reduces costs, automates but also improves client care and makes it possible to manage claims at a scale which might otherwise not be viable. It has already been adopted by the some of the leading claims firms and this investment will enable us to accelerate our international growth.”

Chris Borrett of Mercia Ventures said: 

“FinLegal represents a new breed of AI-enabled LegalTech companies. The business has rapidly cornered a niche within the mass volume litigation market and is driving substantial productivity gains for major global law firms. Steven and his team have acquired clients across the UK, Australia and in the USA and set their sights on becoming one of the leading litigation platforms globally.”

Read More