Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Third-Party litigation funding

Panacea or more problems

Bibliographic Data

ID21749926
AuthorsCharles Silver (University of Texas, Law Austin US), David A Hyman (Georgetown University, Law Washington DC US)
Year2024
Volume25
Issue2
Pages41-62
Publication date2024-07-26
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueTheoretical Inquiries in Law (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1565-1509 • E-ISSN: 1565-3404
PublisherWalter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1515/til-2024-0014
LanguageEN

Third-party litigation funding (“TPLF”) is controversial. To its detractors, TPLF creates serious ethical and national security risks, and results in defendants paying out large “blackmail settlements” based on marginal (if not wholly frivolous) claims. To its supporters, TPLF helps ensure access to justice by putting plaintiffs and their lawyers on a more equal footing with well-resourced defendants, and the willingness of sophisticated third parties to invest their own money is an unambiguous signal that a plaintiff’s case has merit. Our Article makes three contributions: we begin by identifying the similarities in political economy of the campaign against TPLF to the campaigns waged in favor of tort reform. Second, we evaluate the substantive merits of certain arguments against TPLF, treating the rules of professional responsibility as instrumental, rather than ends in themselves. Finally, we explore the importance of agency costs in the market for TPLF. We conclude with some recommendations on how to regulate TPLF

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOI
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae