The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) submitted a letter this week to the Civil Procedural Rules Committee of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, highlighting the benefits of litigation funding and the risks associated with the mandatory disclosure of funding. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is considering a rule that would require mandatory disclosure at the outset of litigation of third-party funding agreements where the funder has a right to control or influence the litigation. ILFA’s letter emphasized that the vast majority of courts—including Pennsylvania courts—have declined to require discovery of funding agreements, in part because such disclosure would breach work product and attorney-client privilege protections. The ILFA letter also emphasized that the leading studies of disclosure by state courts—performed in Delaware and Texas—both concluded that third-party funding does not present significant ethical issues warranting automatic disclosure of funding at the outset of litigation. The full text of ILFA’s letter is available here .
Lawdragon, a leading independent legal research company, has recognized six Certum Group professionals to its 2026 Lawdragon 100 Global Leaders in Litigation Finance. The Guide recognizes the leading practitioners in the field of legal risk assessment and litigation funding. The six members of the Certum team recognized were Patrick Dempsey , Joel Fineberg , Dean Gresham , William Marra , Tyler Perry , and Kirstine Rogers . Certum was recognized for a breadth of offerings, including not only litigation finance but also the range of Certum’s insurance offerings including litigation buyout and judgment preservation insurance. Lawdragon also profiled Marra as part of its 2026 rankings, highlighting his ability to “assess legal claims as assets and create pathways forward to pay lawyers to win strong cases.” The full rankings list is available here.
Litigation funding is no longer novel, but for many law firms it remains unfamiliar. A significant number of the firms we work with— including large and sophisticated practices—are engaging with a litigation funder for the first or second time. When firms ask how best to navigate these relationships, our guidance consistently centers on three principles: Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest, and Control . Addressed early and thoughtfully, these issues help preserve the integrity of the lawyer-client relationship while allowing funding arrangements to function as intended. Confidentiality To get your case funded, you’ll likely need to share certain confidential case information with a funder. (For an overview of what you’d want to include in a memo requesting funding, see this article with helpful tips.) Before sharing confidential information, lawyers must ensure they have their client’s informed consent. Ethical rules—including ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6 and its state analogues—generally prohibit disclosure of client confidential information absent client authorization or implicit authorization arising from the representation. Once client consent is obtained, counsel should enter into a non-disclosure agreement with each funder before sharing substantive information. While the absence of an NDA does not mean that a defendant can obtain information shared with a funder—and courts generally deny discovery into litigation funding—NDAs remain an important tool for protecting confidentiality and reducing the risk of later discovery disputes. For an overview of what’s in an NDA, see this article on the subject). Best Practice Tip: Consider addressing litigation funding explicitly in engagement letters, including advance authorization to share confidential information with funders at the client’s direction. Conflicts of Interest Litigation funding should not create conflicts between a law firm and its client. While the lawyer-client relationship is paramount, it often overlaps with economic arrangements—hourly fees, contingency fees, or hybrid structures—whether or not funding is involved. For that reason, many claimholders elect to retain independent deal counsel to negotiate funding agreements. These negotiations frequently involve corporate, tax, and financial issues that fall outside the core expertise of trial counsel. Separating deal negotiation from litigation strategy can help preserve alignment and avoid conflicts. Best Practice Tip: Claimholders should consider using independent counsel—rather than litigation counsel—to negotiate funding agreements. Control In funded cases, claimholders retain control over litigation strategy and settlement decisions. Many regulatory proposals and court disclosure rules focus on whether a funder has approval rights over such decisions, reflecting the principle that third-party funding should not compromise attorney independence. For example, court rules in the District of New Jersey and disclosure requirements imposed by Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware require disclosure of whether a third party has approval rights over litigation or settlement decisions. While funders are entitled to information about case developments—and may retain limited termination rights in circumstances such as fraud or material breach—they do not direct litigation or settlement strategy. Best Practice Tip: Clearly memorialize the funder’s lack of control rights in both the funding agreement and the engagement letter, using language that mirrors applicable disclosure rules where appropriate. Beyond the Basics: Building Successful Partnerships Beyond these core principles, successful partnerships between law firms and litigation funders depend on: Early Engagement: Involving funders early in case evaluation can provide valuable insights and streamline the funding process. Transparency: Regular conversations among counsel, client, and funder create alignment without compromising control. Realistic Expectations: Understanding the typical funding process timeline and requirements helps manage client expectations.