Alternative Litigation Finance and the Work-Product Doctrine

59 Pages Posted: 20 Feb 2013

See all articles by Grace M. Giesel

Grace M. Giesel

University of Louisville - Louis D. Brandeis School of Law

Date Written: 2012


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.

Keywords: alternative litigation finance, ALF, litigation, personal injury, commercial litigation

JEL Classification: K41

Suggested Citation

Giesel, Grace M., Alternative Litigation Finance and the Work-Product Doctrine (2012). Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 47, No. 5, 2012; University of Louisville School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-06. Available at SSRN:

Grace M. Giesel (Contact Author)

University of Louisville - Louis D. Brandeis School of Law ( email )

Wilson W. Wyatt Hall
Louisville, KY 40292
United States

Register to save articles to
your library


Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics