September 3, 2024

Louisiana’s New Litigation Finance Disclosure Statute and the Institutional Preference for Plaintiff Firms Over Litigation Funders

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter

W. Tyler Perry

|

September 3, 2024

Litigation funding has grown tremendously over the last 10 years and has naturally garnered significant interest from politicians and the public at large. As this awareness has increased, one of the more interesting consequent proposals has been the introduction of legislation requiring disclosure of litigation funding arrangements in court. While these statutes may help ease concerns about transparency in our judicial system, they also reflect a clear institutional preference for the plaintiff bar over third-party funders, which problematizes many of the core arguments against litigation funding as an abuse of the courts.

A statute sent to the Governor’s desk last month in Louisiana helps to clarify the contours of this reality. SB 355 generally requires disclosure of litigation funding by third-party litigation funders.  In the statute, ‘third-party litigation funder’ is described consistent with a fairly uncontroversial definition of the practice:

“Third-party litigation funder” means any person or entity that provides funding intended to defray litigation expenses or the financial impact of a negative judgment related to a civil action and has the contractual right to receive or make any payment that is contingent on the outcome of an identified civil action by settlement, judgment, or otherwise ….₁

What is interesting, however, is that the statute then immediately explains that “[t]his term does not apply to: (a) The named parties, counsel of record , or law firm of record providing funding intended to defray litigation expenses related to the civil action.”₂ Similarly, it does not apply to “(c) Counsel of record, or law firm of record, or any referring counsel providing legal services on a contingency fee basis or to advance his or her client’s legal costs .”₃ In other words, the statute requires that litigation funders disclose their participation in a suit, except where that funding is provided by a plaintiff lawyer taking the case on contingency.  

A basic example helps to concretize the issue. Imagine you are a small mom-and-pop business that has a fully executed, bulletproof contract to deliver 100 widgets for $100,000 each, representing a total contractual value of $10 million. After entering into the contract, but before performance begins, the counterparty breaches the agreement and enters into a similar contract with a cheaper supplier. The mom-and-pop business almost certainly does not have the money to pay a lawyer hundreds of dollars an hour to litigate the matter, let alone the rack rates of high-end trial lawyers who charge thousands of dollars an hour. But they do have a legal claim that is facially worth $10 million. And they can use that asset to seek justice.  

One way to do that is to go to a commercial plaintiff lawyer and see if they will take the case on contingency, which is just another way of saying they will invest their money (via their unbilled time) in a matter. The lawyer will look at the file, do a basic high-level analysis, and ballpark the damages range that they think they can secure through litigation. If the mom-and-pop business and the lawyer are able to come to acceptable terms regarding the lawyer’s compensation for her investment in the case, they execute a retainer. This practice is widespread, uncontroversial, and makes a lot of sense as an efficient way to allow access to our court system. And it’s functionally the exact same thing as litigation finance.

Now, there is another way that the mom-and-pop business can accomplish their goal. They could go to a litigation funder, have the funder conduct the exact same analysis as the contingency fee plaintiff lawyer, and then enter an agreement that provides for funding in exchange for participation in the ultimate recovery. This process allows the plaintiff to retain the lawyer they want (and not just the lawyer willing to do the case on contingency.)  

Tellingly, carve-outs favoring plaintiff lawyers are not unique to this statute or to Louisiana. For example, a 2024 litigation funding bill in Indiana explicitly stated that the term “Commercial litigation financing agreement”:

[d]oes not include a civil proceeding advance payment transaction, [or] an agreement between an attorney and a client for the attorney to provide legal services on a contingency fee basis or to advance the client’s legal costs….₄

Similarly, a new litigation finance bill in West Virginia states “litigation financing transaction”:

[d]oes not include: (i) Legal services provided on a contingency fee basis, or advanced legal costs, where such services or costs are provided to or on behalf of a consumer by an attorney representing the consumer in the dispute and in accordance with the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct.₅

As a practical matter, all of these laws place onerous requirements and restrictions on litigation funders—except when they are plaintiff lawyers.  

Returning to where we began, opponents of litigation funding primarily argue that it leads to a proliferation of meritless litigation by entrepreneurial lawyers. It is incredibly difficult to square that contention with the consistent decision of state legislatures to repeatedly carve out plaintiff lawyers—the original funders in the market—from the recent wave of litigation funding legislation. And I have been unable to find a satisfactory explanation for this incongruity. To me, the preference for one group of funders over another suggests that, at least some , of the argument surrounding litigation funding is animated more by a desire to pick economic winners and losers than substantive policy concerns. In any event, anyone interested in litigation funding policy should continue to monitor the treatment of contingency fee plaintiff lawyers in this evolving statutory environment, as it will undoubtedly continue to shed light on the motivations of the stakeholders involved. 

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

Will Marra Featured in Bloomberg Article About Litigation Finance Disclosure

By Certum Team • January 6, 2026
Bloomberg recently interviewed Certum Group’s William Marra as part of its coverage of efforts by commercial liability insurers to require the disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements. Marra explained to Bloomberg that “[t]he disclosure of litigation funding risks putting impecunious litigants at a systematic disadvantage in our legal system,” adding mandatory disclosure “can disclose to defendants very valuable information, including who has funding, and critically, who does not have funding.” Marra further responded to the argument that litigation funders might fuel frivolous litigation. “To the contrary, the evidence shows that funders serve as a very effective screen, only backing the most meritorious cases, and if anything, likely resulting in fewer weak cases getting filed,” Marra said. This statements builds on arguments Marra previously advantaged in a Vanderbilt Law Review article about litigation funding.  The Bloomberg article is available here .
Blurred view of a business meeting in progress through a glass door. People are seated around a table.

Certum’s Will Marra Elected to ILFA Board of Directors

By Certum Team • December 17, 2025
Certum’s William Marra has been elected to the Board of Directors of the International Legal Finance Association, the litigation finance industry’s leading advocacy group. Will joins five other new members of ILFA’s Board, including: Marcel Wegmüller, the co-founder and CEO of Nivalion; David Perla, the Vice Chair of Burford Capital; Erik Bomans, the CEO of Deminor Recovery Services; Kacey Wolmer, the CEO of Contingency Capital; Rob Rothkopf, the founder and Managing Partner of Balance Legal Capital. “We are honored to welcome Marcel, David, Erik, Kacey, Rob, and William to ILFA’s Board of Directors,” said Paul Kong, the Executive Director of ILFA. “Each brings exceptional expertise, deep industry insight, and a demonstrated commitment to the responsible growth of legal finance. Their leadership will strengthen ILFA’s work to promote transparency, expand access to justice, and support the continued global development of our industry.” “I am delighted to join ILFA’s Board and assist with its important public policy work,” Will Marra said. “Litigation finance helps level the playing field and ensures cases are resolved based on their merits, not the size of a party’s checkbook. LFA’s advocacy for claimholders who need litigation finance is more important now than ever before.” The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world.
People walking in a bright, modern building with orange pillars; blurred effect.

Bloomberg, Law360 Feature Certum’s Expansion Into the MSO Space

By Certum Team • December 11, 2025
Bloomberg and Law360 have highlighted Certum Group’s recent launch of a managed services organization, Certum Legal Solutions, to help law firms handle critical day-to-day operations. Last week, Certum Group announced the launch of an MSO as part of Certum Group’s next-generation risk transfer platform. The MSO complements Certum’s existing businesses providing litigation finance and litigation insurance solutions to law firms and claimholders on both side of the “v.” Certum is the only company in the nation providing litigation funding, litigation insurance, and MSO services. Bloomberg reported that “[i]nterest in MSO deals [is] on the rise,” while emphasizing that Certum Legal Solutions “will handle case intake and discovery support tasks done by a mix of attorneys and non-lawyers.” Law360 highlighted Certum’s move into the MSO space “makes it the only litigation funder to offer a one-stop shop” with funding, insurance, and operations all under one roof. The Bloomberg article is available here .  The Law360 article is available here .