Third-Party litigation funding: Panacea or more problems?
-
Charles Silver
Abstract
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.
© 2025 by Theoretical Inquiries in Law
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Third-Party Litigation Funding: Past, Present, and Future
- Introduction
- Agency costs in third-party litigation finance reconsidered
- What litigation funders can learn about settlement rights from the law of liability insurance
- Third-Party litigation funding: Panacea or more problems?
- Controlling the delegation of control
- Asking the right questions about legal finance in united states aggregate dispute resolution
- The WHAC-A-Mole game: An empirical analysis of the regulation of litigant third-party financing
- Consumer litigant finance and legal ethics: Empirical observations from texas
- Through a glass darkly: TPLF viewed through a procedural lens
- Third-Party litigation funding in the european union: Regulatory challenges
- Imagining how U.S. federalism would affect third-party funding regulation
- Winner pays: An alternative method of public funding
- The business ethics of litigation finance
- Concealed third-party litigation funding
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Third-Party Litigation Funding: Past, Present, and Future
- Introduction
- Agency costs in third-party litigation finance reconsidered
- What litigation funders can learn about settlement rights from the law of liability insurance
- Third-Party litigation funding: Panacea or more problems?
- Controlling the delegation of control
- Asking the right questions about legal finance in united states aggregate dispute resolution
- The WHAC-A-Mole game: An empirical analysis of the regulation of litigant third-party financing
- Consumer litigant finance and legal ethics: Empirical observations from texas
- Through a glass darkly: TPLF viewed through a procedural lens
- Third-Party litigation funding in the european union: Regulatory challenges
- Imagining how U.S. federalism would affect third-party funding regulation
- Winner pays: An alternative method of public funding
- The business ethics of litigation finance
- Concealed third-party litigation funding
