NY City Bar Group Urges Changes to Ethics Rules to Accommodate Lit Funding
The proposals call for an additional rule section that provides an attorney or law firm "may share legal fees with an entity in exchange for the entity's providing" money.
March 02, 2020 at 10:28 AM
3 minute read
A group from the New York City Bar Association, which has previously opined that litigation funding can run afoul of the state's Rules of Professional Conduct, proposed changes to the rules on Monday that would clearly allow lawyers to work on such cases.
Rule 5.4, which prohibits sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, "should be revised to reflect contemporary commercial and professional needs and realities," the bar's litigation funding working group said in a report that has been months in the making. The report put forward two proposals for changes to the rule that would give lawyers "less restricted" access to funding.
Both proposals call for a section to be added to the rule saying a lawyer or law firm "may share legal fees with an entity in exchange for the entity's providing" money, but they put different conditions on that permission and the working group was split in its support for the proposals, the report said.
Both proposed changes make references to lawyers' need to comply with Rule 1.6, regarding the confidentiality of information, and Rule 1.7, on conflicts of interest.
But the first proposed change conditions the use of litigation funding on the funder not being allowed to participate in a matter "except for the benefit of the client," while the second prohibits a funder's participation "in the decision-making regarding the representation" and says a lawyer must maintain professional independence.
The first proposal also limits funding "specifically for use with respect to a legal representation." The second proposal is much more looser, allowing a lawyer or firm to use litigation funding for their "practice." The second proposal's proponents said it "still prohibits the funds from being used for purpose unrelated to client representation, but allows for funds to support generally a firm's legal infrastructure, such as new lawyers, paralegals and investment in information technology."
Meanwhile, the first proposed rule calls for clients to be informed in writing that their lawyer or law firm is sharing fees with a litigation funder. The second proposal requires that a client provide "written informed consent to the financial arrangement."
The changes come more than a year after the city bar's ethics committee concluded that a lawyer may run afoul of Rule 5.4 by entering into an agreement with a non-lawyer litigation funder where the return would come from the lawyer's contingency fee. That opinion sparked controversy and disagreement in the legal industry.
The city bar said it would have a panel discussion about the proposals with members of the litigation funding working group on March 12. Debra L. Raskin and Lynn K. Neuner, its co-chairs, will moderate, and Bruce Green, David Perla, former U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, John McCarthy, Margaret Dale, and Jordan Goldstein are scheduled to be on the panel.
The working group's report comes amid a nationwide push to expand access to legal services that has sparked concern among some lawyers that such a move could open the floodgates to non-lawyer investment—and influence—on the practice of law.
Earlier this month, the American Bar Association's House of Delegates passed a resolution calling for innovation but tempered it after the New York State Bar Association and others expressed similar concerns. In the end, that resolution that passed said it should not be construed as recommending any changes to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 5.4.
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 AllPatent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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