Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Clarifying the Ethics and Responsibilities Inherent in Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

The following is a contributed piece from Nick Rowles-Davies, Executive Vice Chairman of Litigation Capital Management. Along with Andrew Saker, CEO of Omni Bridgeway, and Neil Purslow, Co-Founder of Therium, Nick will be a panelist on LFJ’s upcoming special digital conference — an industry roundup of the major events impacting commercial litigation funding in 2020, and what to expect in 2021. 

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion around litigation finance. This is generally a good thing, as although litigation finance is no longer an unknown dark art, the industry still benefits from a heightened profile as it progresses on the journey from obscure to mainstream.

That said, recent theoretical musings have concerned the ethics surrounding a funder’s involvement in a case, some funders’ closer associations with law firms and the duties of the lawyers running funded cases. These are important issues that should be discussed and debated openly, albeit more usefully by practitioners and funders who have real experience of such matters in jurisdictions where funding is permitted, so as to avoid naïve commentary that betrays a lack of practical knowledge and understanding of how these matters actually work.

One issue raised recently is the concern that using funding can create a conflict between the duties of the lawyer to their client and any duty to the funder. There is a suggestion that in this regard, funders create a ‘practical difficulty’ for lawyers, who are torn between protecting the interests of their clients and pleasing investors.

The only duty of the lawyers in a matter which is financed by a third-party funder is always the one to their client. Professional funders invariably include a provision within their funding agreements that requires the lawyers to act in accordance with their professional duties and any regulatory requirements. That said, the practical reality is that any professional funder will wish to ensure that the interests of the client and the funder are entirely aligned. No funder wants to create a situation where the client has little or nothing to gain from the outcome of the case. The simple reason for this is that the funder does not influence or control the decision making in the litigation or arbitration. They cannot, and attempting to do so would put the funder’s investment at risk.

Funders provide passive capital and once they have decided to invest in a case there are only certain circumstances where a withdrawal from the case is permitted. In reality, given the experience of the established professional funding cohort, most clients are keen to discuss their case with the funder in a way that seeks out the funder’s views and gives the client the benefit of the many years of experience that the funders have gained.

Despite the suggested concerns, funders do only have a limited and pre-agreed role in any decision making, and the funding agreements reflect that position. It has also been suggested that clients should seek independent advice on the terms of the funding agreement, namely alternative advice from the lawyers running the actual case. That does happen, although it is not mandatory given that the parties are commercial entities seeking to enter into a commercial agreement, but then neither is it mandatory for a client entering into a DBA/contingency fee agreement with their lawyers in England and Wales.

It has been observed that there are law firms who are forging closer links or associations with funders and whether that, also, raises questions of duty or loyalty. The commentary above is equally applicable to this. Lawyers know where their duty lies, and professional funders have no interest in interfering in that. Perhaps a more pertinent question is to ask why these associations are happening.

Since the last financial crisis, the law firm model has been changing with corporate clients insisting on higher value and better predictability on fees. In a downward trend since 2008, law firms have been losing out on collections on billable time. Moreover, the most important issue and the area that in house legal teams believe needs the most attention is the provision of more creative and alternative billing solutions.[1]

One way in which law firms can offer an alternative is by the provision of litigation finance. Law firms that are forging closer associations with funders are showing that they understand their clients’ needs and are reacting to their clients’ requests by offering an alternative. The legal market is extremely competitive. It should be assumed that all the lawyers pitching commercial clients for work are very good lawyers. Law firms, particularly in the current financial climate, not only have to address the requirements of those commercial and corporate clients, but they need to set themselves apart from the competition. They need to change the narrative and distinguish themselves in a crowded market. The firms that have made such arrangements are benefitting from the ability to do this and are gaining more work from existing clients and winning new clients with the benefit of their associations with litigation funders. Used intelligently, litigation finance is an excellent business development tool for law firms.

However, these associations go much further than simply being a response to in house corporate demands or the business development needs of law firms. The benefits to the law firms and to their clients are numerous, as they are of course to the funders. Nothing in these arrangements is, should be, or indeed could be, exclusive. The law firm should always act in the client’s best interests.

Whilst the funder may see all of a firm’s potential funding opportunities, it is incumbent on the funder to create an arrangement that is always going to be competitive for the law firm’s clients. That is a significant benefit to all parties. The established professional funders consider every case on its own merit and risk profile and could not guarantee that they will always offer the cheapest terms – to do so would undermine one of the cardinal rules practiced by real funders, namely the pricing of risk. Accordingly, there will be occasions where the funder with whom the firm has an association cannot provide terms that meet the client’s demands for a particular case.

Whilst the regular referral of cases is a benefit to the funder, there is real value to both funder and law firm in the knowledge and experience gained by working closely together, understanding the methodology and then adopting the processes and the thinking undertaken by the funders, even using similar terminology and document precedents.

This exchange of information means that the law firm really understands what it takes to obtain approval for funding. That leads to a better result for clients. There is no time and money wasted in hopeless applications and cases that can be funded are executed more swiftly whilst those that cannot be funded rejected swiftly, or do not make it past the law firm’s triage process which has been honed by continued education from the funder.

It is incumbent on any new industry to listen to concerns, ethical or otherwise, and respond with appropriate understanding and professionalism to address those concerns. All of the issues raised recently have been asked and answered many times before. The litigation finance industry has matured significantly in the last 10 years and is now treated, rightly, as a useful and often necessary tool in any disputes lawyer’s toolbox. The general international trend is one of growing acceptance, increasing adoption of, and accelerated adaptation to, litigation finance—particularly in sophisticated international hubs for dispute resolution.

 

[1] (2019 Report on the State Of The Legal Market by the Georgetown University Law Centre and Thomson Reuters Legal Executive Institute & Peer Monitor)

Commercial

View All
Commercial Special Features

Key Highlights from the Inaugural LF Dealmakers European Edition

By John Freund |

Last week, the LFJ team attended the inaugural LF Dealmakers European Edition, held across two days at the Royal Lancaster in London. Building on the longstanding success of Dealmakers’ New York event, the first edition of the European conference brought together an impressive selection of leaders from across the industry.

Spread across two days, LF Dealmakers featured an agenda packed with insightful conversations between some of the most prominent thought leaders in the European litigation finance market. An array of panel discussions covered everything from the looming potential of regulation to the increasing corporate adoption of third-party funding, with these sessions bolstered by a keynote interview between two of the key figures in the Post Office Horizon litigation.

A long road to justice for the postmasters

In a conference that managed to fill every single panel discussion with speakers engaged in some of the largest and most influential funded disputes taking place in Europe, the standout session of the two days provided unparalleled insight into one of the most famous cases of recent years. The keynote interview on ‘The Future of Litigation Funding in the Wake of the Post Office Horizon Scandal’ saw James Hartley, Partner and National Head of Dispute Resolution Freeths, and Neil Purslow, Founder & CIO, Therium, offer up a behind-the-scenes tale of the sub-postmasters campaign for justice.

Going back to their first involvement with the case, James Hartley reminded attendees that whilst those looking at the case post-judgement “might think it was a slam dunk”, this was not the viewpoint of the lawyers and funders who first agreed to lead the fight against the Post Office. As Hartley described it, this was a situation where you had “a government owned entity who would fight to the end”, with a multitude of potential issues facing the claimants, including the existence of criminal convictions, the limited amounts of documented evidence, and the fact that the Post Office was the party that had ninety percent of the data, documents, and evidence.

Hartley also offered his own perspective on the legal strategy adopted by the Post Office and its lawyers, noting that at every stage of the litigation, “every single issue was fought hard.” He went on to explain that whilst he was “not critical” of the defendant’s strategy in principle, there remains the underlying issue that “the arguments they made were not consistent with the evidence we were seeing.” Hartley used this particular point to illuminate the issues around defendant strategies in the face of meritorious litigation that is being funded. He summarised the core issue by saying: “There is nothing wrong with fighting hard, but it’s got to be within the rules, and in a way that helps the court get to a just outcome.”

Offering praise for the support provided by Purslow and the team at Therium to finance the case, Hartley stated plainly that “without Therium’s funding it would not have gone anywhere, it would not have even got off the ground.” Both Purslow and Hartley also used the case to highlight problems around the lack of recoverability for funding costs and how that incentivises defendants such as the Post Office to prolong litigation and inflate legal costs. Hartley said that he would welcome a change to rules that would allow such recoverability, arguing that in this case “it would have neutralised the Post Office’s strategy to just keep driving up costs on the claimants side.”

What problem is regulation solving?

It was unsurprising to find that questions around the future of regulation for the litigation funding industry were a regular occurrence at LF Dealmakers, with the event taking place only a few days on from the House of Lords’ debate on the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) bill. From the opening panel to conversations held in networking breaks between sessions, speakers and attendees alike discussed the mounting pressure from government and corporate opponents of third-party funding.

The view from the majority of executives at the event seemed to revolve around one question, which was succinctly put by Ben Moss from Orchard Global: “What are the specific issues that require regulation, and what is the evidence to support those issues?”

This question became somewhat of a rallying cry throughout the conference, with suggestions of increased scrutiny and oversight being turned back on the industry’s critics who make claims of impropriety without citing evidence to back up these claims. Whilst several speakers referenced the recent LFJ poll that found a broad majority are open to the potential for new regulation, Ben Knowles from Clyde & Co described a lot of the discourse around the issue as “a fairly partisan debate.”

Among the few speakers in attendance who offered a contrasting view on regulation, Linklaters’ Harriet Ellis argued that “regulation done right would be good for the industry.” However, even Ellis acknowledged that any rules would have to be carefully crafted to provide a framework that would work across the wide variety of funded disputes, saying that a “one size fits all approach does raise issues.”

Regarding the government’s own approach to the issue through the draft legislation making its way through parliament, all of the executives in attendance praised lawmakers’ attempts to find a solution quickly. Alongside these government-led efforts, there was also a feeling among legal industry leaders that funders and law firms have to be part of the solution by promoting more education and understanding about how litigation finance works in practice. Richard Healey from Gately emphasised the need for firms to engage in “hearts and minds work” to change wider perceptions, whilst Harbour’s Maurice MacSweeney emphasised the need to “create the environment where law firms and funders can flourish.”

Innovation through collaboration

Outside of the narrow debate around legislation and regulation, much of the conference was focused on the speed at which litigation finance continues to evolve and create new solutions to meet complex demands from the legal industry. This was perhaps best represented in the way speakers from a variety of organisations discussed the need for a collaborative approach, with executives from funders, insurers, law firms, investors and brokers, all discussing how the industry can foster best working practices.

The interplay between the insurance and funding industry was one area that offered plenty of opportunity for insightful discussions around innovation. Andrew Mutter from CAC Speciality noted that even though “insurers are not known for being the fastest and moving the most nimbly,” within the world of litigation risk “the insurance markets are surprisingly innovative.” This idea of an agile and responsive insurance market was backed up by the variety of off the shelf and bespoke products that were discussed during the conference, from the staples of After-The-Event and Judgement Preservation Insurance to niche solutions like Arbitration Default Insurance.

Delving into the increasingly bespoke and tailored approach that insurers can take when working with funders and law firms, Jamie Molloy from Ignite Speciality Risk, described how there are now “very few limits on what can be done by litigation insurers to de-risk.” Whilst there is sometimes a perception that insurers are competing with funders and lawyers for client business, Tamar Katamade at Mosaic Insurance offered the view that it is “more like collaboration and synergy” where all these parties can work together “to help the claimant and improve their cost of capital and reduce duration risk.”

Class action fervour across Europe

Throughout both days of the LF Dealmakers conference, the volume and variety of class actions taking place across the European continent was another hot topic. However, in contrast to an event focused on the American litigation finance market, the common theme at last week’s forum was the wideranging differences between large group claims across individual European jurisdictions. In one of the most insightful panels, the audience were treated to an array of perspectives from thought leaders practicing across the UK, Spain, and the Netherlands.

The example of Spanish class actions provided an incredibly useful view into the nuances of European claims, as a country that is still in the process of implementing legislation to comply with the EU’s collective actions directive, but has already evolved routes for these types of actions over the last decade. Paul Hitchings of Hitchings & Co. described how the initiative to innovate has come “more from the private sector than the legislature”, with domestic law firms having become “experienced with running massive numbers of parallel claims” as an inefficient, yet workable solution. Hitchings contrasted Spain’s situation with its neighbouring jurisdiction of Portugal, which he argued has been comparatively forward thinking due to the country’s popular action law.

Speaking to the Dutch class actions environment, Quirijn Bongaerts from Birkway, argued that the “biggest game changer” in the country was the introduction of a real class actions regime in 2020. Bongaerts explained that the introduction of this system allowed for “one procedure that fits all types of claims”, which allows not only claims for damages, “but also works for more idealistic cases such as environmental cases and ESG cases.”

LFJ would like to extend our thanks to the entire Dealmakers team for hosting such an engaging and insightful event, which not only offered attendees a view into the latest developments in litigation finance, but also created a plethora of networking opportunities throughout both days. LFJ has no doubt that after the success of the inaugural LF Dealmakers European edition, a return to London in 2025 will cement the conference as a must-attend feature in the litigation funding events calendar.

Read More
Commercial Regulatory Issues

The Dangers of Retrospective Legislation in Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

The debate around whether the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill should be retrospective is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides. A recent op-ed makes the case that retrospectivity poses significant dangers and unfairness.

Writing in LegalFutures, Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer of Winward UK, argues that the core issue is whether it is unfair to allow litigation funders to rely on contractual agreements that were freely entered into by both parties, even if those agreements were based on a mistake of law.

Marshall claims that the common law right to recover money paid under a mistake only applies when the mistake led to one party receiving an unintended benefit. In the case of litigation funding, the only benefit that has accrued is the one that was explicitly drafted into the contract. Allowing retrospectivity would open the door to satellite litigation and unreal counterfactuals, according to Marshall.

Claimants who have already received funding and won their cases are now arguing for the "right" to renegotiate and keep all the proceeds for themselves. But what about the funders' arguments that cases may have gone on longer or become more expensive than intended? Fairness demands that both sides' positions be considered.

Marshall insists that the true drawback in retrospectivity is the inherent danger of prejudicing one party to the exclusion of the other, or conferring an unexpected benefit to one party at the expense of the other. Ironically, this is precisely what those challenging the bill are attempting to do. So while the debate is a complex one, one can make a compelling case that retrospectivity in litigation funding poses significant dangers and unfairness.

ReplyForward
Commercial Regulatory Issues

The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding Will Have Far-Reaching Effects

By John Freund |

The following is a contributed piece by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

Reform is on its way for the UK’s litigation funding sector, with the Civil Justice Council firing the starting gun on its review of litigation funding on 23 April.

The advisory body set out the terms of reference for its review, commissioned by lord chancellor Alex Chalk, and revealed the members of its core working group.

The review is working to an ambitious timetable with the aim of publishing an interim report by this summer, and a full report by summer 2025. It will be based on the CJC’s function of making civil justice ‘more accessible, fair and efficient’.

The CJC said it will set out ‘clear recommendations’ for reform in some areas. This includes consideration of a number of issues that could prove very significant for funders and clients. These include:

  • Whether the sector should be regulated, and if so, how and by whom;
  • Whether funders’ returns should be subject to a cap; and if so, to what extent;
  • The relationship between third party funding and litigation costs;
  • The court’s role in controlling the conduct of funded litigation, including the protection of claimants and ‘the interaction between pre-action and post-commencement funding of disputes’;
  • Duties relating to the provision of funding, including potential conflicts of interest between funders, lawyers and clients;
  • Whether funding encourages ‘specific litigation behaviour’ such as collective action.

The review’s core working group will be co-chaired by CJC members Mr Justice Simon Picken, a Commercial Court judge, and barrister Dr John Sorabji. The four other members are:

  • High Court judge Mrs Justice Sara Cockerill, who was judge in charge of the commercial court 2020 – 2022, and who is currently involved in a project on third party funding for the European Law Institute;
  • Academic and former City lawyer Prof Chris Hodges, chair of independent body the Regulatory Horizons Council which was set up to ensure that UK regulation keeps pace with innovation;
  • Lucy Castledine, Director of Consumer Investments at the Financial Conduct Authority; and
  • Nick Bacon KC, a prominent barrister and funding expert who acts for both claimants and defendants

The CJC had said that it may also bring in a consumer representative, as well as a solicitor experienced in group litigation.

In a sign that the review seeks to be informed by a wide range of views, the CJC has also extended an invitation for experts to join a broader consultation group, which will directly inform the work of the review and provide a larger forum for expert discussion. Meanwhile the advisory body has said there will also be further chance ‘for all to engage formally with this review’ later this year.

Given the broad remit of the review and significant impact that its recommendations may have on the litigation funding industry, litigation funders, lawyers and clients would be well advised to make the most of these opportunities to contribute to the review.

Read More