Litigation Finance Users Say They'd Do It Again, Survey Finds
Validity Finance and ALM Intelligence found that while most lawyers still haven't used third-party litigation funding, more than half of them are game to try it.
August 06, 2019 at 03:12 PM
3 minute read
In spite of the growing buzz surrounding commercial litigation finance, attorneys have been slow to embrace the new tool. But a new survey report from Validity Finance and ALM Intelligence suggests that change is on the horizon, as those who dipped their toes in the litigation funding pool reported nearly universal satisfaction.
The survey results, released Tuesday, show that 98% of law firm lawyers who had used litigation finance would do so again, while 93% said their experience was positive.
The Validity and ALM findings follow a report earlier this summer from Burford Capital that found financial executives at the largest companies are especially open to third-party funding. While funders like Burford and Validity—on the lookout for corporate and law firm partners so they can put their capital to work—have a clear incentive to make their service look like a mainstream offering, the apparent receptivity in board rooms, law departments and firms suggests room for growth.
“It’s about getting over the hump and having some firsthand experience with a funder,” said Validity chief risk officer David Kerstein, once a litigator at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. “Someone that they know or someone that someone they know trusts.”
New York-based Validity and ALM surveyed a total of 330 attorneys—285 who work for corporate firms and 45 in-house counsel. Only 15% of respondents from firms acknowledged using third-party financing for any of their cases.
But another 51% of these law firm attorneys said that they were open to taking advantage of litigation financing. A final 34% said that they are not interested in using it.
Kerstein said that reticence likely stems from a perception that litigation finance introduces additional ethical issues to their practice.
“Once you undraw those ethical issues, it’s not that complicated,” he said. “It’s not that different from everyday practice.”
Of the 51% of law firm lawyers open to using litigation finance, the top reason they cited was the high cost of litigation.
Validity is also fielding more inquiries directly from corporations, and even more so from CFOs than corporate law departments, according to Kerstein. That’s backed up with a finding that only 7% of in-house lawyers had personal experience with outside funding. But these lawyers are receptive to the possibility as well: 60% say they would consider outside funding, compared to the 51% in firms.
“For a long time, funding was thought to as a way to level the playing field and provide access to justice for individuals and smaller companies who did not have the same resources as the bigger guys,” Kerstein said. “More and more people are realizing that it’s also a helpful financial tool for corporations that are well capitalized.”
Read More
Burford Reports Record First Half, Blames Profit-Taking for Declining Shares
Client Ties Powered Nixon Peabody’s Pioneering Third Party Litigation Play
Ready to Ride the Litigation Finance Wave? More Lawyers and Clients Say ‘Yes’ to Funding
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCovington, Steptoe Form New Groups Amid Demand in Regulatory, Enforcement Space
4 minute readConsumer Finance Law Enforcer Takes Private Practice Job at Morgan Lewis
With 'Fractional' C-Suite Advisers, Midsize Firms Balance Expertise With Expense
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The New Rules of AI: Part 2—Designing and Implementing Governance Programs
- 2Plaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
- 3As Litigation Finance Industry Matures, Links With Insurance Tighten
- 4The Gold Standard: Remembering Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer
- 5NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Affidavit of Merit Requirement for Doctor With Dual Specialties
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250