The disclosure of legal finance is a topic frequently covered by industry press, in no small part fueled by the scare-mongering of industry critics who argue that disclosure is needed because of hypothetical alarms ranging from the unlikely to the ridiculous. These critics' real if unarticulated issue is that they just don't like litigation and seek to hinder anything, including commercial legal finance, that helps businesses efficiently enforce their rights and pursue their meritorious claims.

Among the arguments for forced disclosure is that it would allow judges to identify conflicts and recuse themselves should they have an interest in a fund involved in matters before their courts.

Given the small number of legal finance companies, the even smaller subset of publicly traded legal finance companies and the vanishingly small probability that a judge would make that investment, the likelihood of such a financial conflict is exceedingly low. US judges are more likely to encounter issues of recusal based on financial interests in a company affected by a case outcome.