Alternative Litigation Finance and the Work-Product Doctrine
Grace M. Giesel
University of Louisville - Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 47, No. 5, 2012
University of Louisville School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-06
The United States judicial system is in the midst of great and fundamental change with regard to the funding of litigation. Historically, parties financed litigation out of their own literal or figurative pockets or, perhaps with the assistance of some sort of contingent fee representation. Third-party financing of litigation was frowned upon, if not specifically forbidden. But, now, third-party litigation funding entities have begun, with much more frequency and success, to provide funding for small matters such as individual personal injury claims as well as larger commercial litigation matters between businesses. The demand for this alternative litigation finance ("ALF") clearly exists, and the supply of funding has developed despite historical obstacles. Doctrines such as champerty have faded somewhat form the legal landscape, and old fears of having litigation funded and controlled by evil actors equal to the worst villain in any Dickens novel have receded in light of the notion that everyone deserves access to justice regardless of bank account balance.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 59
Keywords: alternative litigation finance, ALF, litigation, personal injury, commercial litigation
JEL Classification: K41
Date posted: February 20, 2013
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 1.579 seconds