Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Stimulus for The Legal Industry

The following piece was contributed by Louis Young, Managing Director of Augusta Ventures. 

The Legal Services industry, like many others, is today racing to come to terms with the implications of coronavirus. A range of impacts have been felt to date, including cases being put on hold, staffing concerns and critically, cash flow issues. With clients under pressure, bills aren’t being paid and pipeline looks increasingly uncertain. Alongside this, law firms have high fixed costs, particularly staff, so income is urgently needed.

Whilst well-managed firms will have a limited cash buffer, leaders now need to look at all sources of finance. There are three challenges: Firstly, they will want to identify the best way to keep firms afloat in the short term of the lock-down without taking on crippling long-term debts. Secondly, they will want to ensure whatever action they take does not damage client relationships. And thirdly, they will want to position for growth for when the crisis eventually subsides. Litigation funding could be the solution that many law firms seek to all three challenges.

In all likelihood, the greatest fall in law firm revenues will be in their corporate and commercial practices. These businesses are usually the mainstay of a firm – offering steady, regular income. In normal times, this reliable revenue streams helps to subsidise more volatile practices including disputes. One option for corporate teams is to seek payment of outstanding invoices. The challenge here is that clients are themselves under pressure. Partners will, therefore, be reluctant to squeeze long time clients in such difficult circumstances, when it has taken many years to cultivate these relationships. Another source of funds may naturally be preferable.

Today, the signs are that disputes work is increasing in importance for many firms as a source of income for partnerships as a whole. The challenge however is the lumpy, often delayed nature of revenue from litigation work. Third-party funding offers a solution to this challenge. Law firms may consider introducing a funder to their key clients to seek funding of the corporate’s portfolio of cases. This would allow the client to move forward with cases that might otherwise be on hold for cash flow reasons. It could also allow the firm to pick up work that wouldn’t normally come their way. And it would ensure that the law firm gets paid today, rather than many months down the line, thereby avoiding taking on external debt or damaging precious relationships.

A key difference between such third-party funding and traditional bank finance is the impact on the client’s balance sheet. Bank loans are liabilities requiring repayment by the client in any eventuality. Litigation finance on the other hand is non-recourse. Whatever the outcome of a case, the lawyers’ fees are paid by the funder and can include both costs incurred to date, and time yet to be recorded. Should a case be lost, the client does not bear any liability for the law firm’s fees. And when a case is won (70%+ of funded cases usually are), the client receives a substantial return. In this way, lawsuits can be converted by clients from an onerous liability, into a potentially valuable asset. And the client is likely to thank the law firm for introducing this solution, providing the choice of funder is appropriate.

Established litigation funders have effective case management processes in place. Often combining analytical and legal skill, they assess cases on a variety of bases including not only the legal merits, but also the financial dynamics of the claim and the defendant’s ability to pay. And well-managed funders participate in the self-regulatory body ALF – the Association of Litigation Funders. Here they undertake to act transparently, fairly and to ensure appropriate returns for claimants. ALF membership demonstrates a commitment to good governance and fair businesses practices akin to established insurers. Law firms will want to protect their reputations and client relationships in selecting funders to introduce.

The time for law firm leaders to act is now. As businesses of all types seek to mitigate the impact of the coronavirus, many investments and activities will be put on hold. Such decisions around legal cases may however be reversed if corporate leaders were able to obtain third-party funding that would not strain their balance sheets. Lawyers who are able to introduce such an option now, would not only win valuable guaranteed fees today, but cement or even develop new client relationships for the long term. When the turmoil of COVID-19 subsides, hopefully sooner rather than later, the law firms best positioned for growth will be those who provided value to their clients through the lock-down.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Burford Capital CEO: Government Inaction on PACCAR is Harming London Market

By Harry Moran |

As we approach the beginning of summer, the litigation funding industry is growing impatient in waiting for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding, with funders anxious to see the government provide a solution to the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an overview of an interview with Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital; who spoke at length about the ongoing impact of the UK government’s failure to introduce legislation to solve issues created by the PACCAR ruling. Bogart highlighted the key correlation between funders’ reluctance to allocate more capital to the London legal market and “the government non-response” to find a quick and effective solution to PACCAR.

Comparing the similarities in effect of the government inaction over funding legislation to the Trump administration’s tariff policy, Bogart said simply, “markets and businesses don’t like such uncertainty.” He went on to describe the London market as “not as healthy as you would like it to be”, pointing to statistics showing a decrease in capital allocation and the examples of major funders like Therium making job cuts.

One particular pain point that Bogart pointed to was Burford’s newfound hesitancy to name London as an arbitral seat and choose English law for international contracts, saying that the company has moved those contracts to jurisdictions including Singapore, Paris or New York. Bogart said that it was “unfortunate because this is one of the major global centres for litigation and arbitration”, but argued that the strategic jurisdictional shift was a result of having “a less predictable dynamic here in this market”.

As for what Bogart would like to see from the upcoming CJC’s review of litigation funding, the Burford CEO emphasised the longstanding view of the funding industry that there is “no need for a big regulatory apparatus here.” Instead, Bogart suggested that an ideal outcome would be for the CJC to encourage Westminster “to restore a degree of predictability and stability into the market.”

Commercial Deals

Insurance CEO Ceases Trading with Firms Linked to Litigation Finance

By Harry Moran |

The tensions between the insurance industry and litigation finance are well established, with insurance industry groups often at the forefront of lobbying efforts calling for tighter regulations of third-party funding. In one of the most significant examples of this tension, the CEO of a speciality insurance company has declared that his company will cease doing business with any firm that is linked to litigation funding activity.

An article in Insurance Business highlights recent comments made by Andrew Robinson, chairman and CEO of Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, where he said that the company would no longer do business with companies who have any ties to litigation finance. Citing the uptick in the use of third-party funding as one of the primary contributors to social inflation, increasing product costs and reduced availability; Robinson declared that Skyward are “not going to trade with anybody who's involved in this”.

According to the article, Robinson’s decision was triggered by the company’s discovery that an asset manager it worked with was involved in litigation funding. Skyward then “shut off” its business relationship with the asset manager and is in the process of redeeming any remaining assets with the firm. Robinson said that the idea of Skyward having ties to firms involved with litigation finance “is wrong at all levels”, saying that he told his executive leadership team that “we can’t have that anywhere near us”.

Aside from the asset manager, Skyward was trading with a company involved in contingent insurance whose work included litigation finance, but Robinson stated that the unnamed company is reducing its already minor presence in the funding space.

Despite targeting his ire primarily at litigation funding, Robinson suggested that the wider issue stems from a “broken” tort system and that “you have to get to the root cause and toward reform”.  

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bell Gully Report: New Zealand Courts are “Enablers of Litigation Funding”

By Harry Moran |

Following a 2022 report from New Zealand’s Law Commission, there has been a distinct lack of action by successive governments to introduce a Class Actions Act or any forms of oversight for the use of third-party funding in large group claims.

A new report released by Bell Gully looks at the current state of class actions in New Zealand, examining the rise of large group claims  and the role of litigation funding as a key driver. In ‘The Big Picture: Class Actions’, Bell Gully says that “in the past five years class actions have moved from being a threat on the horizon to a regular feature in New Zealand’s courts”. 

The introduction to the report appears to paint litigation funders as the prime moving force behind this trend, saying that the swell in class actions is “being driven by the availability of third-party litigation funding rather than a groundswell of consumer action.” Identifying the most prominent funders at work in New Zealand, Bell Gully points to LPF Group as the dominant local funder, Omni Bridgeway for its strong market reach from Australia, and Harbour for its global strength across litigation and arbitration funding. 

Without any legislative measures regulating funding and with no established industry association like Australia’s AALF, Bell Gully highlights the courts as the main mechanism of control over funding activity. The report goes further and suggests that “funder-friendly court decisions have contributed to the growing influence of litigation funders in New Zealand”, noting the admission of opt-out class actions and courts’ willingness to make common fund orders.

In its review of the need for a Class Actions Act in New Zealand, Bell Gully argues that the current lack of oversight on funding has led to a situation where the courts are acting as “enablers of litigation funding” rather than regulators of the practice.

The full report can be accessed here.