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
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.