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
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
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
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
© 2024 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 All‘Are You Not Profiting From Postmasters’ Misery?’—Politicians Grill HSF, Dentons on Post Office Conduct
'Not a Good Look'—FCA Fines Barclays £40M But Accused of Incompetence
Gibson Dunn Sued by Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
Australian Corporations More Concerned About Class Actions Risk, HSF Report Finds
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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