Abstract
Most commercial litigation financing agreements are designed to create distance between the funders of the litigation and legal counsel. Our legal system demands that third party litigation financiers refrain from interfering with a client’s decisions in their matter, and traditional third-party litigation financing is merely a passive profit-making opportunity. There are cases, however, where the litigation financier is not interested in making a profit, but instead wishes to participate in the litigation for political, ideological, or personal reasons. In this article, I will explore whether what I call “interested litigation financing” is an exercise of First Amendment rights or is instead a corruption of the litigation process. It is simple to imagine a scenario where interested financiers take control of litigation; but by examining two recent cases demonstrating third-party interested litigation financing, I argue that interested litigation financing furthers the public values underlying our legal system and poses little risk to the professional responsibility obligations of lawyers.
Recommended Citation
Wendel, W. Bradley
(2019)
"Paying the Piper But Not Calling the Tune: Litigation Financing and Professional Independence,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 52:
Iss.
1, Article 1.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol52/iss1/1