A new opinion piece out of Connecticut casts third-party litigation funding as an under-regulated market whose costs ultimately fall on the public, adding to the chorus of consumer- and insurance-side critics pressing for greater transparency.

As argued in a CT Insider op-ed by Lisa Lounsbury, president of Big I Connecticut, the growth of third-party litigation funding (TPLF) has turned lawsuits into an investable asset — with the resulting costs, she contends, showing up in higher insurance premiums borne by ordinary consumers.

Lounsbury acknowledges the access-to-justice case for funding, noting that it can help plaintiffs pursue legitimate claims they could not otherwise afford. But she argues that expanded access does not justify operating without meaningful transparency or consumer protections. In many states, including Connecticut, she writes, consumers who turn to litigation funders have little protection: the industry is largely unregulated, with no caps on fees, no clear disclosure of true costs, and inadequate safeguards against referral arrangements between lawyers and funders.

She reserves particular concern for disclosure in the courtroom, warning that funding deals often need not be revealed to judges — leaving courts unaware of who holds a financial stake, who may be influencing litigation decisions, and whether conflicts of interest exist. The piece adds a Connecticut voice to a national debate over how, and how much, the funding industry should be regulated.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has established a framework for trial judges weighing the ethical implications of third-party funding in criminal matters, extending scrutiny of outside financing into a context that has drawn far less attention than its commercial counterpart.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the unanimous court issued the framework in a ruling that upheld the conviction of a defendant whose legal bills had been paid by a witness the state called to testify — an arrangement that raised clear questions about divided loyalties. The opinion set out five factors judges should weigh in determining whether a third-party payment arrangement creates a conflict of interest for a defendant's counsel.

At the center of the decision is the principle that an attorney's duty "requires the attorney's exclusive loyalty to the client, without diversion of that loyalty in favor of another person." By articulating specific factors rather than a blanket rule, the court gave trial judges a structured way to assess when outside payment for a criminal defense threatens that loyalty.

The ruling adds a criminal-law dimension to an ongoing debate over transparency and control in third-party litigation funding, which has largely centered on commercial disputes. For courts confronting funded criminal defenses, the decision offers a template for surfacing potential conflicts before they compromise a defendant's representation.