Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Debt-Financed Litigation and Law Firm Size

by Mike Dorf

On Monday, the NY Times reported on the growing trend of relatively high-interest loans being extended by major financial players to plaintiffs' lawyers as a means of funding litigation.  The story raises a number of interesting issues.

1) On the plus side, such debt-financed litigation enables lawyers who otherwise could not afford to front the legal costs to poor clients to do so.  It therefore enables the bringing of some meritorious cases that otherwise would not be brought simply because of the prohibitive cost of litigation.

2) On the minus side, the article notes how the combination of high interest rates and lack of up-front disclosure to clients of debt financing  means that clients can end up paying a very substantial portion of any recovery to lenders.  In addition, there are real concerns about client confidentiality.  Investors need to see materials about the case in order to figure out whether it's worth investing in any given case, but disclosure to such third parties then makes it hard for the lawyer and client to maintain that the material is confidential/privileged.

3) The Chamber of Commerce--which systematically favors defendants--predictably warns against the dangers of this sort of arrangement, but this is obviously self-serving.  According to several experts with whom I spoke, defense firms sometimes use debt financing too, but the Chamber does not seem at all exercised about that.  (Debt-financing works somewhat differently for plaintiff firms and defense firms.  Money is lent to a plaintiff firm on the expectation of levying against the eventual judgment.  Money is lent to a defense firm on the expectation of levying against the client's income-stream after successfully defeating a liability claim to cover up-front defense costs that the client can't pay all at once.)

4) One might wonder why sophisticated investors are doing this now.  The answer I got from those to whom I talked is that this is part of a larger trend of hedge funds and others looking for investments that are not in any way correlated to the overall market.  As we learned a couple of years ago, a seemingly safe hedge can go south when there's enough inter-connectedness in the economy.  (E.g., going short on some asset only hedges against the risk that the asset will decline if the counter-party to your short position is able to pay you when the contract comes due.)

5) Notwithstanding my parenthetical in point 3), debt finance seems to be more common among the plaintiffs' bar than among the defense bar.  But given the high interest rates, one still might wonder why it exists at all.  Wouldn't a better approach be for plaintiff firms to get bigger so that they can self-finance at lower cost?  Yet plaintiff firms tend to be much smaller than defense firms.  Here the answer seems to be that the top of the plaintiff bar does self-finance.  Most of the examples in the story involve tens or hundreds of thousands, not millions of dollars.  But high-end plaintiffs' lawyers can easily self-finance for such cases, and they do--either by themselves or by forming de facto joint ventures with other high-end plaintiffs' lawyers for particular categories of cases.  Because the dollar flow for plaintiffs' work is much less steady than for defense work--which often occurs within a firm that also has other steady work, such as tax, corporate, etc--the joint ventures are temporary, allowing the plaintiffs' lawyers to reduce their overhead in between cases.

Thus, the phenomenon of investor-backed litigation seems to occur somewhere in the middle of the market, not at the top.  Although it's probably true that, per 1), the clients are better off with the debt financing than they'd be without it, they'd be better still if they could go to a plaintiffs' firm that's big enough to amortize its costs across a wider swath of cases.

8 comments:

Patrick S. O'Donnell said...

There's a fair amoung of discussion on this subject as well as links to other treatments over at the Legal Ethics Forum:

see here: http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2010/11/whats-wrong-with-alf.html

here: http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2010/11/teaching-contingent-fees-with-the-foreclosure-lawyer-example.html

and the last item in the post here: http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2010/11/legal-ethics-items-november-16-2010.html#comments

Mithras said...

"Notwithstanding my parenthetical in point 3), debt finance seems to be more common among the plaintiffs' bar than among the defense bar."

As others have pointed out:

"In short, there's nothing novel or interesting about the idea of a third-party funding litigation — we already have a multitrillion dollar industry devoted to the practice, it just happens to be devoted entirely to litigation defense. We call it 'liability insurance.'"

Michael C. Dorf said...

A propos of Mithras's note: Yes, it's true that a big piece of the reason why one sees less in the way of debt-financing on the defense side is the widespread availability of liability insurance. But much defense work involves direct bills to defendants rather than to insurers. Moreover, the purchase of insurance occurs ex ante. (Indeed, it's nearly impossible to get liability insurance once you've been sued.) That creates a quite different dynamic.

michael a. livingston said...

I'm afraid our society is rapidly becoming a parody of capitalism. Why not sell futures in law students? Or law professors? There is an economic difference between investment, speculation, and gambling--it depends on whether the expected return is positive, zero, or negative--that might be of some interest here. All have some economic value, but all can be abused as well.

Fred said...

I think a fair discussion is going on over here. And in my opinion it all such thing depend upon the person on which thing he is going to spend his money and whether he is getting any positive effect of it or not.
Fred Esterly
Debt settlement lawyer

hotvideogames said...

Note About Mitra: Yes, it is true that a large part of the way because he sees less debt, financing the defense side of the availability of liability insurance. But a lot of defensive work is directly related to the defendants and insurance bills. In addition, insurance policies be made in advance. (In fact, it is almost impossible to obtain liability insurance when you have been sued.) This creates a completely different dynamic.Eden GoldBuy Eden GoldCheap Eden GoldEden EternalEden Eternal GoldEden Eternal Review

johnson said...

Seeing a path to a better future is, however, much more difficult today than it has been at any point in our lifetimes. the cambridge satchel|satchel cambridge|cambridge satchel|cambridge satchel co|the cambridge satchel company|cambridge satchel bag|cambridge satchel company bag|cambridge leather satchel|cheap uggs|英文seo

yi yang said...

Although it's probably true that, per 1), the clients are better off with the debt financing than they'd be without it, they'd be better still if they could go to a plaintiffs' firm that's big enough to amortize its costs across a wider swath of cases.
http://www.meizu-mx5.com/