Legal finance is at an inflection point. As the industry continues to grow dramatically, the shift in front of us is—and indeed must be—the maturation of legal finance.
The US Chamber of Commerce Institute of Legal Reform has promoted false narratives about the need to mandate broad litigation finance disclosure. But in the US, the vast majority of courts and legislatures have taken a common sense approach: They do not mandate disclosure of litigation finance in commercial matters, and have declined to add unnecessary rules or regulation.
Legal finance is an increasingly hot topic, but even with all that’s been written, there’s arguably a story that still hasn’t been adequately addressed. It’s called “the demand story.”
An order released today in the opioids multidistrict litigation by Judge Dan Polster provides a welcome example of litigation finance disclosure done right.
A new work by Professor Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt’s law school takes a step forward in articulating the benefits of litigation finance to the entire system of dispute resolution.
In an article published in New York Law Journal, Burford’s CEO discusses what lawyers and their clients need to know about legal finance in 2018.
If you want to glimpse the future of the law business, consider Microsoft’s announcement this summer that it will start hiring outside legal services almost exclusively under alternative fee arrangements.
A long-awaited report on third-party funding in international arbitration has just been released in draft, and it reads like a relic of another era.
As the world’s largest provider of finance for commercial litigation and arbitration, Burford offers its perspective on the report recently received by the ICCA-Queen Mary Task Force on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration.
When considering the issue of disclosure, it’s important to understand exactly how the issue relates to litigation finance—as well as the motives behind calls for increased disclosure requirements.