In the US, the practice of commercial litigation funding is allowed in virtually every jurisdiction, as long as the transaction complies with existing ethical rules that govern attorneys. This chapter focuses on the commercial litigation financing market as opposed to the consumer litigation financing market, as these are effectively separate industries.
Historically, the common law doctrines of champerty and maintenance posed significant obstacles to litigation funding. Champerty prohibits third parties from providing financial assistance to a claimant in exchange for a share of the damages, while maintenance prohibits third parties from “intermeddling” with another's lawsuit. However, these doctrines have been significantly limited or abolished in most US states, particularly concerning commercial litigation funding. It is important to note that, while many states have relaxed or eliminated these doctrines, some jurisdictions may still have restrictions on champerty that could limit or prohibit certain litigation funding arrangements.
For a variety of reasons, including champerty and maintenance laws, litigation funders structure their financing as a passive investment with no control over the litigation strategy, disposition or other aspects of the attorney-client relationship.
Federal Regulations
There is no federal regulation that applies specifically to litigation finance. Efforts to impose regulation on the industry have focused almost entirely on mandating disclosure of the funding arrangement.
Currently, there is no nationwide requirement to disclose litigation funding agreements to courts or opposing parties in federal litigation. However, this lack of uniformity has led to a patchwork of state regulations and local rules, creating inconsistency and uncertainty for litigants and funders.
In response to growing concerns about transparency and potential foreign influence, several legislative efforts aim to establish federal disclosure requirements. The Litigation Transparency Act of 2024, introduced in the House of Representatives, would mandate the disclosure of parties receiving payment in civil lawsuits, including third-party investors and their financing agreements.
The Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules formed a subcommittee in 2024 to evaluate the need for new federal rules governing the disclosure of third-party financing. This initiative, along with the proposed legislation, suggests a growing trend toward increased transparency and regulation of litigation funding at the federal level.
State Regulations
Several states have taken proactive steps to regulate litigation funding, focusing primarily on consumer protection and disclosure requirements. Montana, Indiana, Louisiana and West Virginia have enacted legislation mandating the transparency of funding agreements and holding funders accountable for financing frivolous lawsuits.
Some states have implemented specific regulations to protect consumers in litigation funding transactions, which are not applicable to commercial litigation finance. For example, New York's Consumer Litigation Funding Act aims to regulate the industry by establishing contract requirements, prohibiting excessive fees and deceptive practices, and requiring the registration and licensing of litigation finance companies.
Other state legislatures are currently considering the adoption of mandatory disclosure of litigation financing agreements, although these efforts face opposition from the litigation funding industry as well as large constituencies within the bar and business community that benefit from the availability of commercial litigation funding.
Aside from reputational considerations that promote considerable self-regulatory behaviour among funders, the commercial litigation finance industry has created a trade association called the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA). ILFA currently has approximately 20 members, which include most of the largest and most-established litigation funders.
This article focuses primarily on commercial litigation funding involving sophisticated parties who do not need or want regulations aimed at consumer protection. Consumer litigation funding (as opposed to commercial litigation funding), which involves providing financial assistance to individuals with personal injury or other claims, has attracted significant attention regarding consumer protection. Concerns arise from potentially high fees, aggressive marketing tactics and the vulnerability of consumers facing financial hardship.
Some states have implemented specific regulations to protect consumers in litigation funding transactions. For example, New York's Consumer Litigation Funding Act aims to regulate the industry by establishing contract requirements, prohibiting excessive fees and deceptive practices, and requiring the registration and licensing of litigation finance companies.
Commercial litigation financing agreements are legal and enforceable in virtually every jurisdiction in the US. As noted in 1.2 Rules and Regulations on Litigation Funding, there is currently no federal rule or law aimed specifically at litigation financing. However, largely by virtue of self-regulation, the overwhelming majority of litigation financing agreements explicitly set forth the funder’s role as a passive investor with no ability to control the litigation or interfere with the attorney-client relationship.
As noted in 1.2 Rules and Regulations on Litigation Funding, disclosure requirements for litigation funding agreements vary significantly across jurisdictions. While there is no universal federal mandate, some states and district courts have implemented specific rules.
Arguments for disclosure emphasise transparency, allowing courts and parties to assess potential conflicts of interest and ensure the integrity of the litigation process. Opponents argue that disclosure may be unnecessary and burdensome, potentially chilling the use of litigation funding and hindering access to justice.
The ongoing debate surrounding disclosure highlights the need for a balanced approach that promotes transparency while avoiding undue burdens on litigants and funders.
During the last decade, a significant body of case law has developed on the issue of the disclosure and discoverability of litigation financing documents, including the funding agreements themselves, as well as communications with funders. In the vast majority of cases, courts have ruled that litigation financing documents are not admissible either because they are irrelevant to the underlying litigation and/or because they are protected under the work product doctrine.
Unlike many other jurisdictions, the US generally does not follow the “loser pays” rule, where the unsuccessful party is responsible for paying the legal costs of the winning party. This regime significantly reduces the risk of adverse costs in US commercial litigation, making after-the-event (ATE) insurance less common compared to jurisdictions like England or Australia.
There are limited circumstances where US courts may order a party to provide security for costs, such as when seeking a preliminary injunction. Otherwise, parties are generally not required to provide security.
While ATE insurance is not prevalent in the US due to the absence of the “loser pays” rule, other forms of insurance play a crucial role in managing litigation risk. Companies routinely utilise insurance to defend and indemnify themselves against legal claims, protecting against the financial burden of potential adverse judgments.
Furthermore, specialised insurance products have emerged to address specific litigation risks. Contingent risk insurance offers various options, including adverse judgment insurance for defendants and contingent fee insurance for law firms, providing downside protection against specific litigation outcomes.
Types of Contingent Risk Insurance
Contingent risk insurance encompasses a range of products designed to address specific litigation risks. Key types include the following.
Contingency fee arrangements have long been a fundamental aspect of the US legal system, and are commonly used to finance commercial disputes. Other types of alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) include fixed fees, deferred fees, success fees, capped fees and hybrids of any of these options. A common AFA in commercial litigation finance is a hybrid contingent-hourly fee arrangement, whereby the law firm may receive 50% of its fees as incurred and, in exchange for deferring the other 50%, receives a contingent fee interest in any recovery proceeds.
In the US, each jurisdiction establishes its own ethical guidelines, opinions and case law to define the permissible scope of contingency fees. These guidelines are generally grounded in Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(a), which requires that fees be reasonable. Model Rule 1.5(c) further mandates that contingency fee agreements be documented in writing and signed by the client, and include a detailed explanation of how the fee will be calculated, along with any expenses the client may need to cover.
Fee sharing between lawyers and litigation funders is a significant ethical concern. Rule 5.4(a) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits lawyers from sharing legal fees with non-lawyers. This rule is intended to protect the independence of lawyers and to prevent non-lawyers from influencing legal decision-making.
In the context of litigation financing, fee sharing arrangements can arise when a funder provides financing to a law firm in exchange for a portion of the firm's contingency fee. Such arrangements may violate Rule 5.4(a) if the funder's return is tied directly to the amount of the lawyer's legal fees. However, if the funding agreement is structured properly, it should not violate Rule 5.4(a) in virtually every jurisdiction.
Several ethics opinions and court rulings have addressed the issue of fee sharing in litigation financing arrangements. In 2018, the New York City Bar Association's Professional Ethics Committee concluded that a litigation funding agreement between a funder and a lawyer, where the lawyer's future payments to the funder are contingent on the lawyer's receipt of legal fees, violates Rule 5.4(a). However, in 2020 the New York City Bar Association’s Working Group released a report advocating for changes to Rule 5.4 to facilitate access to litigation funding.
Non-lawyer ownership of law firms is generally prohibited in the US. A notable exception is the state of Arizona, which recently abolished the prohibition of fee sharing with non-lawyers (Rule 5.4) and adopted a regime that allows law firms to structure themselves as an alternative business structure (ABS). ABSs are a relatively new development in the US legal market and allow non-lawyers to own or invest in law firms and share in legal fees. Currently, Arizona, Utah and the District of Columbia are the only states that explicitly allow some form of fee sharing with non-lawyers.
The emergence of ABSs has implications for litigation financing. ABSs can facilitate litigation financing by allowing non-lawyer investors to provide capital to law firms engaged in litigation. This can increase access to justice by providing funding for law firms that might not otherwise be able to afford to take on certain cases. However, ABSs also raise ethical concerns, such as the potential for non-lawyers to influence legal decision-making and the need to ensure compliance with professional standards.
Generally, legal fees are deductible if they are ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in carrying on a trade or business or for the production of income. However, there are limitations and exceptions to this general rule.
Tax Implications for Funders
In addition to the tax implications for litigants and law firms, commercial litigation funding also has tax consequences for funders. The characterisation of a funder's return as ordinary income or capital gain depends on how the funding arrangement is treated for tax purposes.
If the funding arrangement is treated as debt, the funder's return will generally be considered interest income, which is taxed as ordinary income. If the arrangement is treated as equity, the funder may be considered a partner in the litigation and will be taxed on its share of the partnership's income.
If the arrangement is treated as a derivative, the funder may be able to argue that their return is a capital gain under Section 1234A of the Internal Revenue Code. This section provides that gain or loss from the sale or exchange of a capital asset that is a “notional principal contract” (which can include certain types of derivatives) is treated as capital gain or loss.
Tax Treatment of Litigation Funding Proceeds
The tax treatment of litigation funding proceeds in the US is complex and often depends on how the funding arrangement is structured. Achieving the desired tax outcome requires careful structuring of the funding arrangement, as different structures can lead to different tax consequences. There are two primary ways to structure litigation funding: as a loan or as a sale.
Loan Arrangements
In a loan arrangement, the funder provides an advance to the litigant or law firm, which is repaid with interest if the litigation is successful. Loan arrangements have the advantage of deferring any tax on the receipt of the initial funding. However, there can be tax downsides later. If the funding is structured as a loan but does not meet the requirements of a loan under tax law, the IRS may treat the proceeds as taxable income in the year received.
In determining whether an advance constitutes a loan for tax purposes, courts consider several factors, including whether:
Sale Arrangements
In a sale arrangement, the funder purchases a portion of the potential recovery in the lawsuit. While some funders may avoid using the term “sale”, many litigation financing documents are written as sales. When the parties opt for a sale, funders will typically document their investment as a prepaid forward contract. This allows the recipient to defer reporting the funder's advance as income until the conclusion of the case. However, the contract must meet certain requirements to qualify as a prepaid forward contract.
When a US taxpayer makes payments to a foreign person or entity, withholding tax may be required. This can be a significant cost for US taxpayers who make payments to offshore funders and a crucial consideration in commercial litigation funding, as many funders are based in offshore jurisdictions.
40 Burton Hills Blvd, Suite 200
Nashville
TN 37215
USA
+1 615 312 8255
info@westfleetadvisors.com www.westfleetadvisors.comLitigation Funding in the USA: an Overview
The US commercial litigation finance industry is currently robust and dynamic, and has proven to be resilient through very challenging conditions in recent years. The industry withstood the shockwaves of the COVID-19 pandemic and managed to grow despite the additional uncertainties and obstacles. New funders continue to enter into the space, while some well-known incumbents have exited the market. Demand for litigation finance remains high for law firms and their clients. Many professionals have made lateral moves and/or launched their own funds in the last year, and all of these trends are indicative of a healthy industry that is here to stay.
Tight market conditions
US commercial litigation funders continued to ration their capital in 2024 as they faced ongoing challenges raising fresh capital, resulting in tight market conditions for parties seeking funding. With less “dry powder” available, funders have become even more selective in the litigation and arbitration in which they will invest, leaving many otherwise investable matters unfunded and unable to be pursued. However, for the highest quality (lowest risk) litigation funding opportunities, the market is hyper-competitive, enabling these litigants to negotiate lower cost of capital and other more favourable deal terms.
Continued increase in cost of litigation
In recent years, the cost of commercial litigation in the United States has escalated significantly.
Major law firms, often referred to as “Big Law”, have implemented substantial increases in their billing rates. In 2024, top firms raised their rates by an average of 10%, more than doubling the increase seen in 2023. The most significant hikes were observed among the top 50 law firms, which reported a 12.1% increase. Notably, some senior partners are now billing nearly USD3,000 per hour, reflecting the premium placed on elite legal talent.
These rising costs have led corporate clients to seek alternative solutions to manage legal expenses, including litigation finance. Many are turning to smaller boutique firms or expanding their in-house legal teams to control spending. There is also a growing interest in alternative fee arrangements and the adoption of advanced technologies, such as generative AI, to enhance efficiency and reduce reliance on traditional hourly billing models. Despite these efforts, the demand for top-tier legal services remains robust, particularly in areas like mergers, regulatory compliance and private equity, making it challenging for clients to move away from established, high-cost law firms.
Implementation of best practices by law firms
Law firms are increasingly adopting best practices in litigation finance to navigate the growing complexities and ethical considerations surrounding this innovative funding model. Litigation finance introduces a third party – funder – into the traditionally exclusive attorney-client relationship. While this dynamic offers significant advantages, such as enabling clients to pursue meritorious claims without financial constraints, it also brings ethical and operational challenges.
By implementing clear best practices, law firms can address these challenges while demonstrating a commitment to client-focused service and ethical compliance.
Key elements of these best practices include establishing internal policies for managing client-directed funding, maintaining transparency in communication, and ensuring conflicts of interest are anticipated and mitigated. Firms are encouraged to educate their attorneys about litigation finance, build a vetted network of funders, and develop procedures for effective engagement with funders. Fostering relationships with independent advisers and brokers can also streamline the funding process and ensure that clients secure optimal funding terms while maintaining trust and professionalism.
Ethical considerations are central to these best practices. Litigation finance arrangements can create potential conflicts of interest, particularly when a law firm’s financial incentives diverge from its client’s best interests. Ethical challenges also arise in safeguarding client confidentiality, avoiding undue influence by funders on legal strategy, and adhering to the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. To navigate these issues, law firms must prioritise transparency, disclose any potential conflicts to clients, and ensure clients receive independent advice on funding arrangements.
Policy guidelines further strengthen a law firm’s approach to litigation finance. Best practices recommend implementing policies that clearly define the firm’s role in funding arrangements, establish procedures for funder referrals, and require internal reviews of proposed funding agreements. Firms should also set communication protocols with funders to ensure transparency and prevent over-reporting that might compromise client confidentiality. By adopting these policies, law firms not only protect their clients’ interests but also enhance operational efficiency and minimise liability risks.
Adopting and adhering to best practices allows law firms to ethically and effectively navigate the litigation finance landscape. This proactive approach ensures compliance with ethical obligations, strengthens client relationships, and equips law firms to achieve successful outcomes in complex legal matters. Adherence to best practices also increases law firms’ comfort with the funding process and marketplace, which should serve to grow the market overall.
Continuing efforts to require disclosure
Despite the growth and prevalence of litigation funding in the US, there is currently no nationwide mandate requiring the disclosure of such funding arrangements to courts or opposing parties in federal litigation. This lack of transparency has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of undisclosed parties on legal proceedings.
In response to these concerns, various regulatory efforts have emerged. In October 2024, US Representative Darrell Issa introduced a bill that would require parties in civil lawsuits to disclose any third-party funding agreements, including the identities of financiers and copies of related contracts. This legislative move aligns with actions in several states that have enacted laws mandating similar disclosures, such as Louisiana, Indiana and West Virginia. Major corporations like Amazon and Google have also advocated for a nationwide rule to enhance transparency in litigation funding.
The judiciary is also examining this issue. In October 2024, the U.S. Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules agreed to study the potential implementation of a national rule requiring the disclosure of third-party litigation funding in lawsuits. This decision was influenced by calls from business groups and lawmakers who argue that such transparency is essential to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure the integrity of the legal process. Currently, only a few federal courts, like New Jersey's, have specific disclosure requirements, leading to inconsistencies across jurisdictions.
Specialisation among industry players
In recent years, the US commercial litigation finance industry has witnessed a notable trend toward specialisation among funders and associated professionals, including advisers, brokers and transaction counsel. This shift is driven by the increasing complexity and diversity of legal cases, prompting funders to focus on specific types of litigation such as intellectual property, antitrust or international arbitration. By honing expertise in particular legal domains, funders can better assess case merits, manage risks, and offer tailored financial solutions to litigants and law firms. This specialisation enhances their ability to navigate the intricacies of specific legal areas, thereby improving decision-making and investment outcomes.
Advisers and brokers within the litigation finance ecosystem are also embracing specialisation to meet the nuanced needs of their clients. By concentrating on particular sectors or case types, these professionals can provide more targeted guidance, facilitating connections between litigants and funders whose investment criteria align closely with the specifics of a case. This focused approach streamlines the funding process, ensuring that clients are matched with financiers who possess the requisite expertise and interest in their particular legal challenges. Such specialisation not only expedites funding arrangements but also increases the likelihood of successful litigation outcomes by aligning resources and knowledge effectively.
Transaction counsel – ie, the legal professionals who structure and negotiate funding agreements – are similarly gravitating toward specialisation. Given the intricate nature of litigation finance deals, attorneys with deep knowledge in specific legal fields or transaction types are better equipped to address the unique challenges and regulatory considerations inherent in these agreements. Their specialised expertise ensures that contracts are meticulously crafted to protect the interests of all parties involved, facilitating smoother transactions and minimising potential disputes. As the litigation finance industry continues to evolve, this trend toward specialisation among funders and associated professionals is likely to persist, reflecting a broader movement towards expertise-driven practices within the legal and financial sectors.
Pullback in contingent risk insurance
A few years ago, the market for contingent risk insurance in the US began to experience rapid growth, drawing many professionals from the funding industry into the insurance world. However, this rapid growth also led to heightened scrutiny and a more cautious approach from insurers, especially following a few notable, high-profile losses. Contingent risk insurance is now more challenging to obtain, especially for single-case risk, and premiums have increased significantly in a rather short period of time. Despite these setbacks, contingent risk insurance is expected to continue to be an important feature in the commercial litigation finance landscape.
40 Burton Hills Blvd, Suite 200
Nashville
TN 37215
USA
+1 615 312 8255
info@westfleetadvisors.com www.westfleetadvisors.com