Clarifying the 'Probate Lending' Debate: A Response to Professors Horton and Chandrasekher

Abstract

Professors Horton and Chandrasekher break new ground in the legal funding debate with their article on probate funding. Unfortunately, that ground is shaky, based on false assumptions and flawed statistical methodologies. The methodological cracks in the foundation, including unwarranted extrapolation from a limited sample and claiming to measure ex ante risk from ex post results, are identified.

Keywords: litigation financing, litigation funding, litigation lending, third-party litigation financing, champerty, probate, usury, truth in lending

JEL Classification: D01, D81, K39