Asking the right questions about legal finance in united states aggregate dispute resolution
-
J. Maria Glover
Abstract
Third-party legal finance is one of the most controversial modern developments in civil justice, both in the United States and across the globe. It is particularly controversial when mentioned in the same breath as aggregate litigation. Current debate trains on a series of repeated questions: whether and how to ban litigation finance in aggregate litigation; whether the use of litigation finance should be disclosed in discovery; and whether litigation finance is allowed under various (and often ancient) legal doctrines. Obscured from view is what I believe to be the most fundamental question: What is the proper role of litigation finance in the U.S. civil justice system, particularly for resolving aggregate disputes?
Addressing this foundational question requires nuanced and in-depth analysis of the intersection between this new legal finance industry and the dynamics of the United States aggregate litigation landscape. This work is needed now: the outcry against litigation finance, aggregate litigation, and the prospect of the two combined has captured the attention of federal and state legislatures, judges, and rule-makers across the United States. With a few notable exceptions, though, input from complex litigation scholars has been scant. The nascency of the scholarship stands in stark contrast to the often fever-pitched calls for reform.
This Article steps into the breach. Its analysis integrates our developing understanding of the third-party litigation finance industry with well-developed knowledge about the U.S. aggregate litigation landscape. This Article’s analysis reveals that many of the questions currently being debated most often might be misdirected, and it elucidates the “right” questions about third-party litigation finance in United States aggregate dispute resolution, which will help point scholars, lawmakers, and judges in the right direction.
© 2025 by Theoretical Inquiries in Law
Artikel in diesem Heft
- 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
Artikel in diesem Heft
- 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
