Legal Week and the WSJ report that most of the top UK firms are now turning to third-parties to fund litigation, usually "small group actions" which resemble mini-class actions. I make no claims as to whether this is good or bad. I think there are any number of criteria under which to make that determination. Here are some things to consider:
1. Many plaintiffs in the U.S. already have someone else funding their case, the plaintiff's lawyer. Plaintiff's lawyers will take cases for a 25%-40% contingency fee. This raises some conflict-of-interest issues where the client might want to settle and the lawyer wants to keep going. We've managed to come to some equilibrium on this issue so far.
2. A third party funder would require a reopening of this issue -- guidelines as to billing, what documents a lawyer can share with the funder, how much input the funder has regarding the legal strategy, etc.
3. Do we really need a third party funder at all? In the U.S., there already exist those who buy others' legal claims for some % of the potential recovery. Why fund someone else's case when you can just buy it?
2. A third party funder would require a reopening of this issue -- guidelines as to billing, what documents a lawyer can share with the funder, how much input the funder has regarding the legal strategy, etc.
3. Do we really need a third party funder at all? In the U.S., there already exist those who buy others' legal claims for some % of the potential recovery. Why fund someone else's case when you can just buy it?
No comments:
Post a Comment