Traditionally defense-oriented large law firms are increasingly taking on plaintiff-side engagements for their corporate clients, with litigation funders providing both the capital and an independent assessment of which claims merit pursuit.

As reported by Original Jurisdiction, the shift was the subject of a Burford Capital panel discussion examining how the historical division between plaintiff-side and defense-side practice has continued to erode. Corporate clients, panelists observed, have come to treat affirmative litigation as a balance sheet item rather than a cost center.

The reframing is straightforward: as one panelist put it, "if you have a meritorious legal claim, that is an asset" — one that can generate value for shareholders instead of sitting unused. Recognizing claims that way, however, requires firms built around hourly billing to absorb risk they have not historically carried.

That is where funders enter. By financing plaintiff-side matters, funders allow firms to pursue contingency work without exposing their own economics to a single outcome. Panelists also described the diligence funders perform as valuable in its own right, characterizing a funding commitment as "a vote of approval" on the strength of a claim.

The transition demands a change in orientation as much as in economics. Lawyers accustomed to defending must, in the words of one participant, "stop playing defense" and play offense, while managing budgets against work that generates no continuous hourly revenue. Larger corporate clients, meanwhile, are weighing potential recovery against the commercial relationships a claim may disturb, and selecting counsel accordingly.

Whether a successful party can recover its third-party funding costs in a Singapore-seated arbitration remains unsettled and turns substantially on how the funding agreement itself is structured, according to new practitioner guidance.

As reported by Pinsent Masons, recoverability is determined by tribunals on a case-by-case basis, with no settled rule compelling or barring an award of funding costs. The threshold for challenging a tribunal's costs determination in court is correspondingly high, reflecting Singapore's minimal-intervention approach to arbitral awards.

The analysis points to the Singapore International Commercial Court's decision in *DTH v DTF*, in which the court declined to disturb a tribunal's refusal to award funding costs alongside legal costs on an award of approximately $14.73 million. The SICC observed that it was "difficult to see how such a determination could be said to shock the conscience," signaling how little room parties have to relitigate costs allocation after the fact.

Drafting is where the guidance places the emphasis. Funding agreements must satisfy the requirements of section 5B of Singapore's Civil Law Act, and arrangements framed as commercial investments in the outcome rather than as funding for the costs of proceedings risk falling foul of the maintenance and champerty rules that section 5B carves out.

The practical implication for funders and funded parties is that the recoverability question is largely settled at the point of contracting, not at the costs stage. The guidance also notes the divergence between Singapore-seated arbitration and SICC proceedings, where recovery of funding costs remains prohibited outright.