header-logo header-logo

Third-party funding concerns

18 January 2012
Issue: 7497 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Litigation funders should be kept at “arm’s length”

The expanding market in third-party litigation funding needs greater regulation, according to an influential study, published this week.

Several third-party funders have launched in the last 10 years and US-style contingency fees, under which lawyers’ firms act as third-party funders, are due to be extended to personal injury claims by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Currently, contingency fees are permitted in tribunals in England and Wales.

A joint study by the universities of Oxford and Lincoln, Litigation Funding: Status and Issues, argues that greater transparency and effective regulation of third-party funding is required. It shows that, to date, nearly all claimants using third-party funding have been commercial clients rather than private individuals. It argues that self-regulation will not be enough to protect private individuals.

Co-author Christopher Hodges, head of the centre for socio-legal studies at Oxford University, says: “A third-party funder should be kept at arm’s length in the litigation process.

“For instance, funders should not determine the terms of a settlement. There is the danger that funders might opt for a lower settlement than the client might want in order to resolve a case quickly.

“Similarly, we do not want to see a situation where the third-party funder and a lawyer’s firm are in collusion against their client’s best interests. This does not appear to have happened yet in the UK, but we want to ensure that any risk of it happening in the future is removed.

“Clients need more legal protection as otherwise there is potential for third-party funders to control claimants’ cases for their own advantage.”

Co-author Dr Angus Nurse, now of Birmingham University, says: “The models of funding currently in use within the UK preserve the lawyer-client relationship, and our research found that funders currently exercise strict due diligence in selecting cases to fund in a way that provides for effective self-regulation of the market.

“But, as new entrants introduce different business models, the expansion in the funding may dictate a review of funding regulation to achieve both client protection and protection of the funding market itself. As a result, we consider that self-regulation may not be sustainable in the long-term.”

Issue: 7497 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll