Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues Special Features

Select Ethical Issues Present in Litigation Funding

The following article was contributed by John J. Hanley, Partner at Rimon Law. 

Litigation financing is on the rise in the United States and provides some claimants a valuable means for paying the costs of pursuing a legal claim. Lawyer involvement in litigation financing transactions raises many ethical issues for a lawyer such as competence, duty of loyalty, the potential waiver of privilege and interference by a third party, to name a few.

Competence

The first rule for lawyers under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (the “NY RPC”) is competence.[1]  Lawyers and law firms should tread carefully when considering undertaking client engagements in a subject area in which they do not have the requisite knowledge and skill to provide competent representation of their clients. Official Comment 1 to Rule 1.1 provides in part that factors relevant to determining whether a lawyer has the requisite knowledge and skill in a matter include the relative complexity and specialized nature of the matter, the lawyer’s general experience, the lawyer’s training and experience in the filed in question, and the preparation the lawyer is able to give the matter.[2]

This does not mean that lawyers cannot deal with matters in which they are initially unfamiliar.  Indeed, the American Bar Association points out in comments to Rule 1.1 that “[a] lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior experience to handle legal problems of a type with which the lawyer is unfamiliar. The analysis of precedent  . . . and legal drafting are required in all legal problems. Perhaps the most fundamental legal skill consists of determining what kind of legal problems a situation may involve, a skill that necessarily transcends any particular specialized knowledge. A lawyer can provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field through necessary study.”[3]

According to the New York City Bar Report to the President by the New York City Bar Association Working Group on Litigation Funding: “[a] lawyer whose client seeks third party funding should determine at the outset whether he or she has the transactional experience and sophistication required to negotiate a beneficial agreement with the funder or whether a specialist in the field should be involved.”[4]

Competence in litigation finance includes familiarity with various litigation financing structures and privileges against disclosure, among others.[5]  For example, the structure may involve different types of collateral, different means of financing legal fees and expenses, the manner in which funding is disbursed and the return structure of the financing.  A lawyer concentrating her or his practice on litigation funding may also be better able to determine “market” terms of the financing.

Duty of Loyalty and the Lawyer’s Financial Interests

Of course, the lawyer is the client’s fiduciary and agent who owes his or her client undivided loyalty and is forbidden from putting her interest above that of the client. The New York State Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics reminds lawyers that their financial interests must not interfere with the representation of the client.[6] Ordinarily, there is nothing adverse to a client about a lawyer getting paid for legal services[7] but in a litigation funding transaction the lawyer could have a personal interest in respect of the transaction. For example, the litigation funding agreement may facilitate payment of a portion of the lawyer’s fees or ensure certain expenses borne by the lawyer will be repaid.[8] The American Bar Association posits that if a lawyer has a relationship with a litigation funder that creates a financial interest for the lawyer . . . it may interfere with the lawyer’s obligation to provide impartial, unbiased advice to the client (the “ABA Report”)[9].

The ABA Report goes on to say that a lawyer with a long-term history of working with a particular funder may have an interest in keeping the funder content which would create a conflict even in the absence of an explicit agreement. The NY RPC, specifically Rule 1.7(a)(2), like the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if “there is significant risk that the lawyer’s professional judgment on behalf of a client will be adversely affected by the lawyer’s own financial, property or other interest.” Additionally, Rule 5.4 of the NY RPC, and its analogous provisions in other jurisdictions, requires that a lawyer maintain independence[10].  Consequently, such lawyer, representing a client in a matter for which litigation funding is sought, in general may be able to represent the client with respect to the litigation funding agreement but should disclose the lawyer’s relationship with the funder and receive the client’s informed written consent.

Communication and Confidentiality

Rule 1.4 of the NYRP Conduct requires a lawyer to communicate promptly, and provide complete information, to the client regarding the matter, and to reasonably consult with the client about the means to achieve the client’s objectives.[11]

Reputable litigation funders are usually careful to provide in the litigation finance documents that the funder will not be involved in discussions between the lawyer and client regarding the matter, and that the funder will not direct or control the litigation. In certain circumstances an inexperienced lawyer may consider involving the funder in discussions about case strategy, but caution is in order. If a party other than client and the attorney is involved in communications involving legal issues or the case, the attorney-client privilege and confidentiality of communications is likely breached and the attorney may be guilty of legal malpractice. Indeed, Rule 1.6 of the NYRPC requires that a lawyer not knowingly reveal confidential information, or use that information to the disadvantage of the client or advantage of the lawyer or a third person, subject to certain exceptions.[12]

Conclusion

An attorney who represents a client in a matter that is to be funded pursuant to a litigation funding agreement should consider the ethical implications discussed in this Insight, among others, before representing the client in the funding agreement. Counsel would avoid all of the ethical considerations that may arise by referring the client to an outside attorney experienced in litigation finance.

[1] N.Y. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R.1.1.  The California Rules of Professional conduct and the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) also make this the number one rule.  Indeed, all fifty states and the District of Columbia have adopted legal ethics rules based at least in part on the MRPC.
[2] N.Y. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R.1.1, Comment [1].
[3] Available here ABA Comment to Rule 1.1
[4] Report to the President by the New York City Bar Association Working Group on Litigation Funding (February 28, 2020).
[5] Others includes, without limitation champerty, maintenance, barratry, usury and required disclosures.
[6] N.Y. Comm. on Prof’l Ethics, Formal Op. 769 (November 4, 2003).
[7] The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion No. 2020-204.
[8] Id. At 3.
[9] American Bar Association, Informational Report to the House of Delegates Commission on Ethics 20/20.
[10] N.Y. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R.5.4.
[11] N.Y. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R.1.4(a).
[12] N.Y. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R.1.6(a). See also the American Bar Association’s Model Rule 1.6.

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Discovery Application Filed by Russian Billionaire Over Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

The sanctioning of Russian business owners since 2022 has led to a plethora of litigation, as one ongoing case in Florida sees two Russian nationals in a dispute over the funding of litigation between them.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers ongoing proceedings in a Florida court, where sanctioned Russian billionaire Andrey Guriev is seeking discovery on the funding of claims brought against him by Alexander Gorbachev. The discovery application relates to a series of cases brought against Guriev by Gorbachev over his claimed partial ownership of Guriev’s company, with Gorbachev’s legal costs, insurance and additional expenses having been paid by Sphinx Funding LLC, a subsidiary of 777 Partners. 

Gorbachev failed in his claim brought against Guriev in the UK, but has since claimed that he does not have the £12 million that he has been ordered to pay to Guriev in court costs. Mr Guriev’s counsel from Boies Schiller Flexner, explained the reasoning behind the discovery application in a memorandum of law, stating:

“Mr. Guriev hopes to discover information relevant to the identities and ultimate sources of the funds provided by the third-party funders who financed Mr. Gorbachev’s failed, frivolous, and potentially fraudulent claims, as well as the true motives and objectives in bringing those claims.”

In response to a prior application by Guriev to have the two funders added as parties to the case, Joshua Wander, managing partner and co-founder of 777 Partners, stated that even though the company had covered some of Gorbachev’s legal costs, it had no stake in the result of the litigation. Furthermore, Wander had claimed that his companies had no paid any of Gorbachev’s legal costs after May 2023, following a “breakdown in the relationship between Alexander and the funders”.

Case Developments Commercial

£16m Settlement Reached in Dispute Between Funder and Investor’s Estate

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

The funding of arbitration claims brought against nation states represent challenging opportunities for legal funders, with the potential of a large return balanced against the complicated nature and prolonged timelines of these disputes. A new settlement in the High Court demonstrates that these issues can even extend to disputes between the claimant and funder, even when a valuable settlement is secured.

Reporting by the USA Herald covers the move by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales to finalise the settlement in a dispute between litigation funder Buttonwood Legal Capital, and the estate of late Finnish mining investor Mohamed Abdel Raouf Bahgat. The £16.74 million settlement which was approved by the court on Tuesday ended the legal action that Buttonwood began in 2022 to recover a share of the award won in Bahgat’s arbitration case against Egypt.

As Mr Bahgat died on 8 October 2022, the settlement was reached with his estate. The arbitration claim dated back to 2000 when Bahgat was arrested by the new government and had his assets frozen and his mining operations project seized. The arbitration ended in 2019 at a tribunal in The Hague where Bahgat was awarded $43.8 million, which following two years of interest and an enforcement dispute, finished as a $99.5 million payout in November 2021. Buttonwood brought a claim to the High Court in the following year to retrieve its share of the amount, further complicated by a prior renegotiation of terms between Buttonwood and Bahgat in 2017.

Neither Buttonwood Legal nor the Estate of Mr Bahgat have publicly commented on the settlement.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

LSB Director Argues Funding Should Move to a “Mandatory Model” of Regulation

By Harry Moran and 4 others |

With next Monday set as the deadline for the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) Interim Report and Consultation on litigation funding, we are beginning to hear more vocal arguments about the approach the government should take towards regulating the litigation funding industry.

An article in Legal Futures provides an overview of remarks given by Richard Orpin, Director, Regulation & Policy at Legal Services Board, at a consultation event for the CJC review in Oxford. In his speech, Orpin advocated for “moving away from the voluntary model of regulation to a mandatory model” for litigation funding, suggesting that it should be brought “into the remit of the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority).

Orpin argued that the rise in the use of litigation funding had “coincided with an increase in poor practice by some law firms in receipt of that funding,” and that “this pattern of behaviour undermines trust confidence in the ‘no win, no fee’ sector.” Orpin put forward the view that regulators needed to take a “more proactive” stance, highlighting his organisation’s concerns over “poor standards of client care, short-term financial gain being put above the interests of client and duty to the court.”

Other speakers at the event varied in their perspectives, with Richard Blann, head of litigation and conduct investigations at Lloyds Banking Group, similarly arguing that the current model of self-regulation was “ineffective and inadequate” and that the Association of Litigation Funders (ALF) “has no teeth”. 

Adrian Chopin, managing director and founder of Bench Walk Advisers, offered a dissenting view and questioned some of the preconceptions about funding, saying that the suggestion there are “waterfalls where the funders take everything and the client gets nothing” demonstrated a “gross level of ignorance”.