Trending Now
Commercial Regulatory Issues Special Features

Legal and Ethical Considerations When Navigating Litigation Finance

By John Freund |

The following post was contributed by Jeff Manley, Chief Operating Officer of Armadillo Litigation Funding. 

In litigation finance, especially in mass torts and class actions, trust and success hinge on unwavering ethical practice and legal compliance. For attorneys and financial professionals navigating this complex field, a steadfast commitment to upholding ethical standards is not just ideal—it’s imperative. This article delves into the crucial considerations that must guide the intricate relationship between legal funding and professional integrity.

The Importance of Law Firm Independence

Law firm independence is paramount when it comes to funding arrangements, particularly within the complex sectors of mass torts and class actions. The imperative to maintain this independence while engaging with external funding sources necessitates a sophisticated approach to partnership. Firms must ally with financiers who not only understand the legal and ethical implications inherent to such cases but who also value the firm’s autonomy in decision-making processes. A skilled financier can guide firms through the nuances of these arrangements, ensuring that the terms of any financial agreement bolster the firm’s ability to act in its clients’ best interests without external influence. Drafting agreements with a clear delineation of roles and expectations, without compromising the firm’s command over legal strategy, is not solely a matter of due diligence—it’s a strategic endeavor to uphold the integrity and efficacy of the legal services provided.

Managing Conflicts of Interest

Managing conflicts of interest requires a collaborative effort between law firms and their funding partners. Identifying and mitigating potential conflicts at the intersection of funders, firms, and clients necessitates a united approach. Together, firms and funders should conduct thorough reviews of funding arrangements to spotlight areas where interests might diverge, ensuring that neither the firm’s allegiance to its client nor the client’s best interests are compromised. Adopting a joint strategy that aligns with ABA Model Rule 1.7 on conflicts of interest can fortify this alliance. This partnership approach to conflict management might include establishing shared guidelines for conflict checks, mutual disclosures to involved parties, and embedding protective measures in funding agreements that prioritize client outcomes. A cooperative oversight mechanism, possibly in the form of a committee comprising representatives from both the firm and the funder, can serve as a vigilant guardian of ethical integrity and client dedication, fostering a proactive culture of transparency and ethical vigilance.

Crafting of Finance Agreements

Moving into the structuring of financing agreements, it’s vital that financiers and law firms unite to craft solutions (and operating agreements) that are ethically grounded and legally sound, starting with shared due diligence. Both parties engage in a transparent exchange to ensure all legal and ethical considerations are meticulously evaluated, laying a groundwork that prioritizes the client’s best interests and compliance with regulations. The agreement’s structuring phase is an exercise in precision, balancing financial objectives with stringent ethical standards. Following the execution of the agreement, a concerted monitoring effort is essential to ensure ongoing compliance and address any ethical issues proactively. This cooperative stance not only fosters trust and transparency between the financier and the firm but also upholds the dignity of the legal profession and the rights of the clients they serve. This endeavor necessitates guidance from a trusted and sophisticated financier, ensuring that the partnership is built on a foundation of expertise and integrity.

Regulatory Compliance

Navigating this domain requires acute awareness of both state and federal regulations. This environment demands that law firms and financiers possess a deep understanding of the legal intricacies that define their operational landscape. The diversity of regulations across jurisdictions necessitates a partnership with well-respected funders, who bring sophisticated guidance to the table. Their expertise is invaluable in steering through the complexities of compliance, ensuring that practices are not only current but also anticipatory of the legal field’s dynamic evolution.

The future of litigation finance hinges on adaptability to regulatory changes, which are increasingly influenced by the sector’s growing recognition and its impact on access to justice. The call for enhanced clarity in regulations and the push for stringent disclosure practices indicate a trend towards standardization across the board. Law firms, guided by seasoned financiers, must remain vigilant and adaptable, ready to adjust their strategies to maintain compliance and ethical integrity. This proactive stance is crucial not just for navigating today’s regulatory challenges but also for shaping the future of ethical litigation finance.

Conclusion

In the rapidly shifting landscape of litigation finance, the value of a partnership with a well-respected financier cannot be overstated. Such collaborations are critical not only for steering through the regulatory complexities but also for shielding a firm against potential legal liabilities, including malpractice claims. As the industry continues to evolve, the guidance of experienced financiers becomes an indispensable asset, enabling law firms to anticipate changes, adapt strategies, and maintain compliance. This partnership does more than protect; it empowers firms to thrive amidst challenges, ensuring that their commitment to justice and client service is upheld. In the end, the journey through the ethical and regulatory intricacies of litigation finance is one best undertaken with a trusted financier by your side, crafting a future where the legal profession and its principles stand resilient.

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Australian Federal Court Approves $24.5M Funder’s Commission for Galactic 

By John Freund |

Reporting by Lawyer’s Weekly covers a major development in two Australian class actions, where litigation funder Galactic obtained a favourable ruling from the full Federal Court to double its commission from its funding of lawsuits brought against 7-Eleven and ANZ Bank. Justices Craig Colvin, Bernard Murphy and Michael Lee, overturned a 2023 judgement by Justice O’Callaghan that refused to make Galactic’s CFO order. As a result, Galactic’s commission from the class actions will drastically rise from $12 million, to a total $24.5 million.

The Federal Court’s ruling on 2 May found that Justice O’Callaghan had been wrong to refuse making the CFO order on the basis that the court did not have the power to do so. The three Justices wrote that Galactic’s $24.5 million commission “is commercially realistic and properly reflects the costs and risks Galactic took on by funding the proceedings.”

The class actions brought against 7-Eleven and ANZ Bank focused on allegations that the fuel and convenience store chain’s standard Franchise Agreement had ‘unfair contractual terms’ that violated consumer law. ANZ Bank were targeted by the second class action over claims that it had failed to meet its obligations under Australia’s Code of Banking Practice, ‘by lending to buy into the franchise system, often up to 100 per cent of the franchise license.’

Case Developments Commercial

London’s Black-Cab Drivers Bring £250M Claim Against Uber

By John Freund |

An article The Financial Times covers legal actions being brought against Uber on behalf of London’s black-cab drivers, centred on allegations that Uber misled Transport for London (TfL) to obtain its license. Specifically, the lawsuit focuses on the claim that Uber misled TfL around its booking model, and that the company allowed its drivers to receive direct bookings from customers rather than through a central system.

The claim is being brought in the High Court by RGL Management and is representing more than 10,500 black-cab drivers, who argue that they were harmed by unfair competition and are seeking up to £25,000 in compensation per driver. The claimants are represented by Mishcon de Reya and Katch Investment group are providing the litigation funding for the claim, with the total value of the group litigation reaching £250 million.

In a statement, Uber continued to deny the allegations and said that the claims “are completely unfounded”, maintaining its position that the ride-hailing company “operates lawfully in London, fully licensed by TfL.”

More information about the group litigation can be found on RGL Management’s ‘Black Cabs v Uber Litigation 2021’ (BULit21) website.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Legislation to ensure the enforceability of LFAs is progressing smoothly through Parliament

By John Freund |

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

So far, the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill has been passing through Parliament without a hitch.

The government is bringing the legislation in response to the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in PACCAR Inc & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, which called into question the enforceability of LFAs.

The Bill was briefly introduced into the House of Lords on 19 March, and was debated at second reading on 15 April. During the debate, while some peers discussed the need for regulation of the litigation funding industry and for careful consideration of whether the retrospective nature of the legislation was justified, no peers opposed the Bill – and many welcomed it.

More recently, during scrutiny at grand committee on 29 April, the relatively small number of peers who attended the session broadly supported the Bill, and several spoke in favour of the need for its provisions to be retrospective.

In terms of the Bill’s drafting, the government proposed some small changes at committee stage, which were waved through by peers. The most significant was to address a potential problem with the original drafting where the LFA relates to the payment of costs rather than funding the provision of advocacy or litigation services.

The problem was that, in the original wording, it could be argued that the Bill only applied to the funding of costs that relate to court proceedings, but not those relating to arbitration, or settlements. This has now been resolved by new wording to make clear that an LFA may relate to the payment of costs following court, tribunal or arbitration proceedings, or as part of a settlement. An LFA may also relate to the provision of advocacy or litigation services.

Meanwhile another government amendment was aimed at avoiding problems for litigants-in-person, by ensuring that the definition of LFAs in the Bill includes agreements to fund the expenses of LiPs, for example where they need to pay for an expert’s report.

During grand committee, peers also expressed their approval of the broad terms of reference that have now been published by the Civil Justice Council for its review of litigation funding, which will include an examination of whether the sector should be regulated; and if so, how. Peers commended the speedy timescale that the CJC has set itself, aiming to produce an interim report by the summer, and a full report by summer 2025.

As the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill continues its journey through Parliament and the CJC begins work on its review, there are clearly significant changes on the way for the litigation funding sector in the UK.

Read More