The common law doctrine that bans champerty has been around since the middle ages. This dark age law prohibiting funding for legal cases by outside parties (who then receive a share of a winning award) is still in place in some parts of the world. But Minnesota is no longer one of those places—earlier this week, the Minnesota Supreme Court abolished the champerty doctrine.
Bloomberg Law explains that this is a major win for litigation funders, as it affirms its positive impact on the legal world. This follows the trend of other states either refusing to recognize champerty laws, or outright legalizing third-party legal funding. Texas, Ohio, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Illinois, Hawaii, Connecticut, Colorado, California, Arkansas, and Arizona are all on board with lit fin as a growing field.
This recent decision began with a personal injury case wherein an injured party made an agreement to receive funding from Prospect Funding Holdings LLC. The plaintiff agreed to pay Prospect Funding about $14,000, but her lawyer refused, saying the agreement was invalid because of the state-wide ban on funding. The funder sued, and lost in district court—the agreement was declared unenforceable because it was not technically legal to begin with. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruling reversed this decision.
Eric Schuller, President of ARC—the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding, expressed satisfaction with the decision. “The Minnesota Supreme Court got it right. We hope that this decision will allow the opponents of the industry to finally put the issue of champerty to rest.”
Schuller goes on to explain the necessity of Litigation Finance, “Consumer Legal Funding is a financial product that allows consumers to get the proper outcome of their legal claim when they don’t have the financial wherewithal to meet their day-to-day obligations like mortgage, rent, or just putting food on the table.”
