Harvard Business Law Review article argues blanket legal finance disclosure adds cost without benefit

A new article in the Harvard Business Law Review offers a compelling rebuttal to calls for blanket disclosure of legal finance arrangements.[1] The authors argue that such mandates would:

1. Impose unnecessary costs and complexity on litigants and courts
2. Run counter to the views of most legal industry experts, including responsible funders
3. Stifle innovation and limit access to capital—ultimately harming the very litigants the justice system exists to serve

In this post, we summarize key takeaways from the article and why the authors and many others view blanket disclosure as unnecessary.

The costs of blanket disclosure outweigh the benefits

While calls for mandatory disclosure have become louder—particularly from lobbying groups like the US Chamber of Commerce—the authors argue these efforts are based on exaggerated concerns. They cite the example of Burford’s investment in Sysco’s antitrust litigation to show how one high-profile case has been misrepresented. The facts in the case show that Burford obtained limited consent rights only after Sysco breached its contractual obligations, refuting claims of undue funder control.

The authors caution that broad disclosure regimes have the potential to expose sensitive legal strategies, invite harassment from opposing parties, increase litigation costs and deter legitimate and needed funding—funding sought by litigants with meritorious claims seeking access to our justice system. Rather than enhancing the fairness or efficiency of litigation, such mandates may undermine it—by introducing new obstacles and disincentives for those seeking justice through the courts.

Legal and ethical safeguards already exist

The article emphasizes that courts and lawyers already have robust mechanisms to prevent abuse. Attorneys are bound by ethical duties of loyalty and independent judgment regardless of legal finance provider involvement. In many jurisdictions, judges can review funding agreements in camera—maintaining oversight while protecting sensitive information. And most judges already have the authority, under existing court rules, to order disclosure on a case-by-case basis. The authors also caution against one-size-fits-all mandates to regulate legal finance providers. Reputable legal finance providers are presently regulated and operate with a degree of transparency, especially publicly traded legal finance providers such as Burford.

Aligning with Burford’s view

The article reflects a growing consensus across the legal finance ecosystem that broad mandatory disclosure is not only unnecessary—it’s counterproductive. Targeted regulation and case-by-case oversight offer a better balance between transparency and fairness.

As policymakers continue to explore legal finance regulation, we hope they will heed the article’s central message and avoid overreach that could chill innovation, complicate litigation and reduce access to justice.