United States: New York City Bar Opinion On Commercial Litigation Funding Raises Concerns

Peter R Jarvis is a Partner in Holland & Knight's Portland office

Trisha Thompson is an Associate in Holland & Knight's Portland office


  • The New York City Bar Association's Professional Ethics Committee recently issued advisory (i.e., not legally binding) Opinion 2018-5 (Opinion), which concludes that nonrecourse commercial litigation funding agreements between a lawyer or law firm and a litigation funder violate the prohibition on sharing fees with nonlawyers in Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 5.4(a).
  • Although the authors of the Opinion concluded that they had no flexibility under RPC 5.4(a) to reach a different conclusion, that conclusion is highly debatable. The purpose of the rule, its history and New York case law do not compel this conclusion.  
  • The Opinion concludes by recognizing that the rule can be said to be overbroad and to go beyond what is necessary to protect lawyer independence. The Opinion therefore notes that one way out of this situation would be consideration of an additional black letter exception to RPC 5.4(a).

The New York City Bar Association's Professional Ethics Committee (Committee) on July 30, 2018, issued advisory Opinion 2018-5 (Opinion), which concludes that nonrecourse commercial litigation funding agreements between a lawyer or law firm and a litigation funder violate the prohibition on sharing fees with nonlawyers in Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 5.4(a).1 Many professional responsibility lawyers submit that the Opinion inadequately considers the purpose of the rule, the history of the rule and New York case law.

Understanding Litigation Funding

Litigation can be extremely expensive, and capital is no more free to lawyers than to others. Commercial litigation funding provides lawyers with an alternative to traditional borrowing or self-financing. Instead of lending funds on a recourse basis (that is, with an obligation to repay the funds plus interest), a commercial litigation funder advances funds to cover some or all of third-party costs and legal fees but is only to be repaid if, and when, funds are received either in settlement or in collection of a judgment. In other words, the litigation funder receives neither a return of capital nor any profit if there is no recovery.

The Opinion notes that when a client arranges for litigation funding, there is no problem regarding the sharing of fees with nonlawyers because it is the client, and not the lawyer, who is sharing. Unfortunately, there are many instances in which client-directed litigation funding will not work. For example, client-directed litigation funding generally cannot be used successfully in plaintiffs' class action litigation or in most mass tort litigation. Alternatively, some individual cases may have an insufficient amount in controversy to qualify for client-directed funding but may benefit from lawyer-directed funding on a portfolio basis. The Opinion advises against most, if not all, lawyer-directed litigation funding for the sole reason that it ostensibly violates New York RPC 5.4(a) which, like parallel rules elsewhere, provides that "A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer ... ."

A Disservice to Independent Professional Judgment?

The Opinion notes that RPC 5.4 is entitled "Professional Independence of a Lawyer" and that Comment [1] to RPC 5.4 makes clear that "These limitations are to protect the lawyer's professional independence of judgment." Nonetheless, the Opinion does not explain how or why its prohibition on lawyer-directed litigation funding serves these purposes. Consider, for example, Lawyer A and Lawyer B, each of whom represents one or more plaintiffs in a potentially very large case. Lawyer A finances Case A with a traditional bank loan for which Lawyer A (or at least Lawyer A's firm) is on the hook for principal and interest. Lawyer B, by contrast, uses nonrecourse commercial litigation funding. If one asks, for example, which lawyer is less likely to feel the pressure to settle for less than what otherwise might be in their clients' interest in order to minimize or avoid self-interested financial risk, the answer is Lawyer B, the lawyer with nonrecourse litigation funding. This is because if Case B is unsuccessful, Lawyer B has no obligation to repay the litigation funder while Lawyer A would.

The only contrary argument would appear to be that the litigation funder working with Lawyer B could seek to apply pressure on Lawyer B to settle for less than the amount on which Lawyer B might insist if capital were free. The problem with this argument is that it presupposes either that there is an alternative of free capital or that lawyers who obtain traditional recourse loans or who self-finance their cases are not at least equally pressured, whether internally or externally.2 In addition, and in class action situations, there will necessarily be judicial involvement which will allow a full airing of any claims that lawyers settled for too little or were otherwise adversely influenced by litigation funders (or others) in any respect.

Ignoring the History of the Rule?

The Opinion asserts that the Committee had no choice in its interpretation of RPC 5.4(a) because none of the black letter exceptions to that rule cover commercial litigation funding. While it is true that none of the present black letter exceptions to the rule address lawyer-directed commercial litigation funding, this statement ignores critical aspects of the rule's history.

At the American Bar Association (ABA) level, two of the black letter exceptions to the rule – RPC 5.4(a)(3) authorizing nonlawyer employee participation in profit-sharing plans and RPC 5.4(a)(4) regarding sharing court-awarded legal fees with nonprofits – were expressly recognized by the ABA as straightforward readings of the purpose of the rule without any need for black letter exceptions. In both instances, the ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility noted that the purpose of the prohibition on sharing fees with nonlawyers is to protect independent legal judgment. And in both instances, the ABA Committee went on to hold well before the existence of these black letter exceptions that because these kinds of activities did not reasonably appear likely to affect a lawyer's exercise of independent professional judgment, they were not prohibited by the rule. See ABA Formal Op. 93-374 (1993); ABA Informal Op. 1440 (1979). While the subsequent creation of the black letter exceptions was no doubt helpful to remove any lingering questions, they were not required to limit the rule according to its stated purpose. As noted in Comment [14] to the ABA Model Rules, the RPCs are "rules of reason" which "should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal representation and of the law itself." The same logic and the same result can be applied to lawyer-directed commercial litigation funding.

Finally, commercial litigation funding in the United States postdates publication of the RPCs, including RPC 5.4(a). Consequently, the lack of an express exception is not an indication that the drafters of the RPCs intended to prohibit commercial litigation funding.

New York Case Law Misstated?

As a key component of its conclusion, the Opinion limits its discussion of three significant judicial decisions in New York to a footnote in which the Opinion attempts to distinguish them. According to the Opinion, Hamilton Capital VII, LLC v. Khorrami, LLP,3 Lawsuit Funding, LLC v. Lessoff,4 and Heer v. North Moore Street Developers, LLC.5 stand solely for the proposition that a lawyer who obtains commercial litigation funding cannot use the violation of RPC 5.4(a) as a justification for refusing to pay the funder. However, that is not what these cases say.

In Lessoff, for example, the court expressly adopted the language of a prior Delaware case noting, inter alia, that "The Rules of Professional Conduct ensure that attorneys will zealously represent the interests of their clients, regardless of whether the fees the attorney generates from the contract through representation remain with the firm or must be used to satisfy a security interest" and "there is no real 'ethical' difference whether the security interest is in contract rights (fees not yet earned) or accounts receivable (fees earned) in so far as Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4, the rule prohibiting the sharing of legal fees with a nonlawyer, is concerned." And in Hamilton Capital, the court stated that "While it is well settled that actual fee-sharing agreements are illegal and unenforceable ... the case law cited by defendants does not support the proposition that a credit facility secured by a law firm's accounts receivable constitutes impermissible fee sharing with a non-lawyer. To the contrary ... courts have expressly permitted law firms to fund themselves in this manner." 6 Moreover, "Providing law firms access to investment capital where the investors are effectively betting on the success of the firm promotes the sound public policy of making justice accessible to all, regardless of wealth." 7


The advisory Opinion concludes by recognizing that the rule can be said to be overbroad and to go beyond what is necessary to protect lawyer independence. The Opinion therefore notes that one way out of this situation would be consideration of an additional black letter exception to RPC 5.4(a). In light of the purpose of the rule, the history of the rule and pertinent case law, an amendment should not be necessary. Nonetheless, an amendment to remove any remaining doubt would appear to be desirable. Unfortunately, such an amendment will likely take some time to bring to fruition. Until then, there are very sound reasons not to take the Opinion as the last, or ultimately correct, word on this subject.   


1 NYCBA Opinion 2018-5 (July 30, 2018). 

2 Contemporary litigation funding agreements also make clear that the funder may not interfere in any way with lawyer decision-making and is not entitled to access to confidential client information.

3 No. 650791/2015, 48 Misc.3d 1223(A), 2015 WL 4920281 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 17, 2015).

4 No. 650757/2012, 2013 WL 6409971 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 4, 2013).

5 140 A.D.3d 675, 36 N.Y.S.3d 93 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016).

6 2015 WL 4920281 at *5.

7 Id. See also Roy D. Simon, Simon's New York Rules of Professional Conduct Annotated (2017 ed.) at 1420 ("New York courts have created what I call a 'litigation funding exception' to Rule 5.4(a).").

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions