Psst – heard about third-party funding?


Carron: funding now in the legal mainstream

Most lawyers claim that they tell their clients about third-party litigation funding – but if they are, they must be speaking very quietly as few in-house counsel say they do, according to new research.

The survey, commissioned by Harbour Litigation Funding, found that while 80% of law firms and 50% of chambers say they discuss funding with clients, not one of the 31 in-house counsel polled recalled having such a conversation.

One possible reason is that lawyers put it in the paperwork without actually discussing it; some lawyers may also have answered the question the way they knew they should.

Nearly 60% of the 37 law firms surveyed said they discussed conditional fee agreements (CFAs) with clients, and 18% of in-house lawyers said that had happened – but none had been told about after-the-event (ATE) insurance.

Nonetheless, a fifth of in-house lawyers were aware of litigation funding, the same figure as knew about ATE, while 39% recognised CFAs as an option. Looking to April, none were aware of damages-based agreements.

In-house lawyers cited cost/cash flow control and risk minimisation as the main benefits of funding. The key barriers to seeking it were a loss of control over the litigation and the option of self-funding; private practice lawyers, by contrast, saw the cost of funding and investment required to set it up as the principal barriers.

In-house counsel said low chances of success and costs outweighing the benefits were the main reasons they abandoned litigation.

Harbour CEO Brett Carron argued that the findings showed that third-party funding has “moved to the legal mainstream as far as solicitors and barristers are concerned”.

Susan Dunn, Harbour’s head of funding, added: “It’s clear that solicitors, barristers and clerks are talking about litigation funding at the right stage of a case, which is tremendously encouraging, and yet there is more work still to be done to educate in-house counsel and dispel certain myths which develop from a lack of understanding.”

The survey, conducted by Acritas, also included 33 barristers’ chambers. The in-house lawyers’ companies ranged in turnover from £41m to £26bn.

Tags:




Blog

18 October 2018
Claire Stockford

An analogue decision? Google defeats attempt at consumer ‘class action’

In an eagerly awaited judgment, the High Court handed down its ruling in Richard Lloyd v Google LLC on 8 October. It seems clear that there is a degree of reluctance to permit group litigation which will not materially benefit consumers. That being said, it is hard to ignore the increased possibilities of group litigation in the context of corporate data breaches, particularly following the implementation of GDPR earlier this year.

Read More