April 22, 2024

A New York City Ethics Committee Embraces Litigation Funding

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter

William Marra

|

April 22, 2024

The City Bar’s recommendation is significant because it represents yet another high-profile body rejecting the U.S Chamber of Commerce’s arguments regarding litigation funding, a guest columnist writes for the Law Journal.

A key New York City Bar Association ethics committee’s proposal that New York amend its legal ethics rules to explicitly permit litigation finance agreements between lawyers and funders could be a watershed moment for the litigation finance industry.

If the proposal is accepted, New York would become the latest—and the largest—jurisdiction to join a growing chorus of states that are amending their ethics rules to clarify that litigation funding is a permissible and welcome feature of our legal system. And if New York, the country’s largest legal market, were to lead on this issue, other jurisdictions would likely soon follow, creating a positive cascade effect for litigation funding and access-to-justice initiatives.

At issue is Rule 5.4 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which says lawyers may not “share legal fees” with nonlawyers. The New York City Bar Association’s Professional Responsibility Committee  recommended  this month that New York amend Rule 5.4 to explicitly clarify that lawyers may assign their interest in fees to a nonlawyer, so long as the lawyer gives the client notice and opportunity to inquire prior to any such assignment.

The recommendation follows a growing trend across the nation. In 2020, Arizona’s Supreme Court abolished the state’s version of Rule 5.4 entirely for the  stated purpose  of “promot[ing] business innovation in providing legal services at affordable prices.” Around the same time, Utah’s Supreme Court created a “ regulatory sandbox ” that allows licensed lawyers to experiment with nonlawyer ownership. And Washington D.C.’s  Rule 5.4(b)  has long allowed certain forms of non-lawyer ownership of law firms.

In one sense, the City Bar committee’s recommendation is unremarkable. As I have recently  explained, New York courts have repeatedly reaffirmed the legality, propriety, and benefits of litigation funding.  Two   separate  state court judges have written opinions stating that third-party funding allows “lawsuits to be decided on their merits, and not based on which party has deeper pockets or stronger appetite for protracted litigation.” The City Bar committee likewise emphasized that “there is now a long history of court decisions enforcing” lawyer-funder agreements.

Yet in other ways, the committee’s recommendation could be a crucial domino.This is because some critics of litigation funding still invoke Rule 5.4 to charge that funders create conflicts of interest and meddle with attorney-client independence. Most notably, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform recently released a  report  claiming that efforts to pare back Rule 5.4 would “significantly decrease the quality of legal representation” including by “creating inevitable conflicts of interest among lawyers [and] clients” and by “making the settlement of lawsuits more difficult, inefficient, and expensive.”

The chamber has the explicit goal of curtailing litigation finance, a tool that helps cash-poor litigants pay their lawyers and win their cases.

The City Bar’s recommendation is significant because it represents yet another high-profile body rejecting the chamber’s arguments. Indeed, the committee dismissed as ill-conceived “paternalism” the suggestion that “one type of financing has the power to corrupt a lawyer’s professional ethics more than any other financial arrangement with a nonlawyer.”

The history here is especially remarkable, for in  July 2018, the City Bar’s professional ethics committee issued a controversial  opinion  suggesting that litigation funding agreements between funders and law firms might violate Rule 5.4. That opinion caused a stir, leading the association to convene a working group that  effectively repudiated  the 2018 ethics opinion and called for amendments to Rule 5.4. And now, a separate committee of the City Bar has itself proposed amendments, which will be sent to the New York State Bar Association, and ultimately New York’s appellate courts, for approval.

Of course, even without widespread amendments of Rule 5.4, the litigation funding industry is fast becoming a mainstay of our civil justice system. A recent  survey  by Westfleet Advisors, a litigation finance consultancy, found that $2.7 billion was committed to new deals last year, with two-thirds of funding agreements occurring between funders and law firms. (Rule 5.4’s ambit is limited to agreements between funders and  law firms ; no one argues that agreements between funders and  claimholders  implicate Rule 5.4.)

Nevertheless, more explicit approval would further dispel any doubts about the propriety of litigation funding. This would invite more law firms to accept third-party capital that can help the firms innovate and offer better, more affordable legal services to their clients, bringing the transformative power of the capital markets to one of its last redoubts in America, the legal industry.

This should in turn increase access to the courts and make our legal system more rather than less efficient, as both New York City’s professional responsibility committee and the Arizona Supreme Court have recognized.

Indeed, it is no coincidence that litigation funding is going mainstream, and efforts to modify and repeal Rule 5.4 are gaining steam, as a growing body of  scholarship  is concluding (contrary to the Chamber’s assertions) that litigation funding expedites case resolution, reduces litigation spend, and lowers the cost of legal services.

Consider, for example, the claim that litigation funding promotes frivolous litigation. Funders typically invest in 5% or less of the opportunities—only the  strongest  claims—because funders that back weak cases will soon go out of business. Indeed, there is a growing recognition that funding more likely  deters  weak cases, because funders effectively screen meritless cases from ever getting filed in the first place. After all, if two or three litigation funders refuse to fund your case, will you want to invest your own resources into the matter? Probably not.

The City Bar committee’s recommendation is a welcome and potentially watershed step towards increasing acceptance of litigation funding – which should in turn increase meritorious litigants’ access to the courts.

***

William Marra  is a director at Certum Group, where he leads the litigation finance strategy, and a lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law, where he co-teaches a course on litigation finance.

***

Reprinted with permission from the April 17, 2024 edition of the New York Law Journal © 2024 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or  asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

Apple v. OpenAI: How the World’s Most Valuable Company Is Using Trade Secret Law to Defend Its Competitive Edge

By Patrick Dempsey • August 18, 2026
On July 10, 2026, the most valuable company in the world accused the most talked-about company in the world of theft. Apple sued OpenAI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that OpenAI built its hardware ambitions on a foundation of Apple’s misappropriated trade secrets.¹ Few disputes touch as much of Certum’s Trade Secret Litigation Playbook at once: reasonable measures to guard a secret, identifying with particularity what was taken, and the human-centered points — recruiting and employee departures — where secrets actually walk out the door. Nearly every core theme in Certum Group’s Trade Secret Guide is in this case. And the lesson beneath it is worth sitting with: for the companies with the most to protect, trade secret litigation is not a last resort. It’s a front-line instrument of competitive strategy. Background The dispute sits at the intersection of two of the most closely watched storylines in technology. In 2025, OpenAI acquired io, the hardware venture founded by former Apple design chief Jony Ive and a group of other Apple alumni, for a reported $6.5 billion, and set out to build its first consumer hardware device, widely expected to compete directly with the iPhone.² To staff that effort, OpenAI hired aggressively from Apple. According to the complaint, more than 400 former Apple employees now work at OpenAI.³ Two of those hires anchor Apple’s allegations. Tang Yew Tan spent roughly 24 years at Apple, where he served as a vice president of product design responsible for the iPhone and Apple Watch, before becoming OpenAI’s chief hardware officer. Chang Liu spent about eight years at Apple as a senior systems electrical engineer before departing for OpenAI in 2026.⁴ Apple’s theory is not that a single rogue employee walked out the door with a file. It is that the movement of talent was accompanied by a coordinated effort, one Apple describes as operating “at every level," to extract and exploit the confidential information those employees carried in their heads and on their devices.⁵ The Allegations The complaint reads less like a garden-variety departure dispute and more like a catalog of the exact conduct the Trade Secret Guide warns companies to watch for. Among Apple’s central allegations: Apple claims OpenAI’s hardware leadership directed recruiters to use Apple’s confidential project code names during the hiring process, and instructed job candidates to bring “actual parts” and “CAD/design artifacts” to their interviews.⁶ It alleges that OpenAI circulated internal Apple documents marked “Need to Know” that coached departing employees on how to evade Apple’s exit-security procedures, including the “dreaded walkout,” and to alert OpenAI before signing their exit agreements.⁷ The specifics attributed to individual employees are what give the complaint its texture. Apple alleges that Chang Liu exploited an authentication bug to reach internal network storage after his access should have been cut off, messaging a colleague, “LOL, I found out I can access the [network storage], so funny,” and noting within hours of his departure that he “still ha[d] another computer.”⁸ And Apple alleges that io “exploited and used Apple’s secret, proprietary industrial design techniques,” misleading one of Apple’s own manufacturing partners about whether it was authorized to use a confidential metal-finishing technique.⁹ The trade secrets Apple says are at risk span the full arc of its product-development process: technical specifications for unreleased technologies, engineering presentations and prototype data, component and vendor selection processes, and the proprietary manufacturing techniques that turn a design into a shippable product.¹⁰ Notably, Apple’s opening ask is not a damages windfall. It is protection. Apple seeks to bar OpenAI from using or disclosing the information at issue, to compel the return of its confidential materials, and to preserve the evidence.¹¹ In other words, Apple is using the courthouse to do what its NDAs and exit interviews were supposed to do: keep its edge inside the building. OpenAI’s Response OpenAI has pushed back hard, and its answer is a preview of the fault lines any trade secret plaintiff should expect to fight over. On August 6, 2026, OpenAI moved to dismiss, characterizing the alleged conduct as “benign, lawful conduct” that Apple has mischaracterized, and arguing that its hardware executives simply followed standard industry recruiting practices.¹² As to Chang Liu, OpenAI contends he was “trying to help Apple” by assisting former colleagues who asked him to locate work information, not stealing anything.¹³ More pointed, and more instructive, is OpenAI’s argument that Apple’s own conduct undermines its case. OpenAI asserts that Apple allowed employees to use personal iCloud accounts for work and failed to properly revoke access when they left — noting that an Apple manager remained logged into Chang Liu’s personal iCloud account after his departure in order to transfer files.¹⁴ From that, OpenAI argues that Apple’s offboarding lapses created “confusion and unwanted access issues that Apple now characterizes as theft.” OpenAI also contends that Apple has not identified its trade secrets with adequate specificity, pointing instead to “generic categories of the product-development process.”¹⁵ OpenAI must file its full response by August 17, 2026, with oral argument on the motion set for October 1, 2026.¹⁶ Whatever the merits, OpenAI’s playbook is worth studying precisely because it is so conventional. Reasonable secrecy measures and identification of the trade secret with particularity are two of the elements every misappropriation claim rises or falls on, and they are exactly where a well-resourced defendant will apply pressure first. What This Means It is easy to read a case like this as celebrity litigation between two of the most valuable enterprises on earth. The more useful reading is that trade secret law has become core infrastructure for how modern companies protect competitive advantage. Apple did not respond to a $6.5 billion competitive threat with a press release or a patent portfolio. It responded with a trade secret complaint, because in a business where the crown jewels are unpatented know-how — manufacturing techniques, vendor relationships, unreleased designs — the Defend Trade Secrets Act and its state-law counterparts are the sharpest tools available. The case also throws the Trade Secret Guide’s central lessons into relief. The value of a trade secret program is only as good as the “reasonable measures” behind it; OpenAI’s opening move is to argue that Apple’s own iCloud and offboarding practices were not reasonable at all. The ability to describe what was taken, with specificity, is not a formality. It is frequently the whole ballgame at the pleading stage. And the human element — recruiting, exit procedures, the “dreaded walkout” — is where secrets actually leak, long before anyone reaches a courtroom. Companies that treat these as compliance checkboxes learn the hard way, in a complaint, that they were the strategy all along. For those of us who evaluate disputes for a living, Apple v. OpenAI is also a reminder of why high-stakes trade secret matters are among the most compelling on the plaintiff’s side. The conduct is often concrete and documentable, the competitive stakes are enormous, and, as the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Versata Software v. Ford underscored, the damages framework can reach the full value of what the misappropriation delivered to the wrongdoer, not merely a discounted license fee. That combination is exactly what makes these cases worth pursuing, and worth backing. Apple’s complaint will be tested, as it should be, and the allegations remain just that — allegations. But the strategic signal is already unmistakable. When the most valuable company in the world wants to defend its future, it reaches for trade secret law. Certum Group’s Trade Secret Guide is built to help plaintiffs and their counsel do the same, whatever their size, and this case is a live illustration of why that playbook matters now more than ever. Certum Group can help. If you are evaluating a trade secret dispute or want to talk through options for funding or de-risking one, get in touch . Footnotes ¹ Complaint, Apple Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc. , No. 5:26-cv-07078 (N.D. Cal. filed July 10, 2026); see Apple sues OpenAI over alleged trade secret theft , TechCrunch (July 10, 2026). ² The wildest allegations in Apple's trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI , TechCrunch (July 13, 2026). ³ Id. ⁴ Apple sues OpenAI over alleged trade secret theft , TechCrunch (July 10, 2026). ⁵ Apple sues OpenAI alleging trade secret theft, says scheme was "at every level," CNBC (July 10, 2026). ⁶ The wildest allegations in Apple's trade secrets lawsuit against OpenAI , TechCrunch (July 13, 2026). ⁷ Id. ⁸ Id. ⁹ Id. ¹⁰ Apple sues OpenAI over alleged trade secret theft , TechCrunch (July 10, 2026). ¹¹ Id. ¹² OpenAI Asks Judge to Toss Apple's Trade Secrets Lawsuit , Claims Journal (Aug. 7, 2026). ¹³ Id. ¹⁴ OpenAI says Apple's own security practices undermine its trade secrets case , TechCrunch (Aug. 6, 2026). ¹⁵ Id. ¹⁶ OpenAI Asks Judge to Toss Apple's Trade Secrets Lawsuit , Claims Journal (Aug. 7, 2026).

Chris Seidl Named to IAM Strategy 300 List of Leading IP Strategists

By Certum Group Team • August 13, 2026
Certum Group is pleased to announce that Chris Seidl has been named to the 2026 IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists list. IAM Strategy 300 is a global ranking of IP strategists who are leaders in developing and implementing strategies to maximize the value of IP portfolios. IAM identifies individuals through extensive research annually. Chris leads Certum’s IP finance strategy, including IP licensing, litigation funding, and acquisitions. This is the fifth consecutive year Chris has been included on the IAM Strategy 300 list.  Click here to see the complete rankings.

How Lawyers Can Use AI Effectively and Responsibly

By Certum Group Team • August 4, 2026
Artificial intelligence is quickly changing how legal work is researched, drafted, reviewed, and delivered. But while AI can improve efficiency, it also creates serious risks, including inaccurate analysis, fabricated citations, and potential court sanctions.  In this webinar, Certum Group brings together legal and business experts to discuss how lawyers can use AI to strengthen their work without compromising accuracy, professional judgment, or accountability.