Surprise, surprise. Third-party litigation funders and their associated lawyers are not too keen on regulatory proposals proceeding through the European Union (see ’Tough enough?’, NLJ, 21 October 2022, p20). The proposals were backed in September by the European Parliament. Brexit was, of course, intended to protect the UK from this sort of outrageous intrusion by the ‘nanny state’. But, even here and in the US, EU backing for statements such as ‘When litigation funders provide financing for legal proceedings in exchange for a share of any compensation awarded, a risk of injustice can arise’ might give rise to a chilling effect on a rapidly burgeoning market. Hence, the concern.
Heavyweight considerations
Third-party litigation funding has rather crept up on us. Lawyers are still practising (just) for whom the old prohibitions on maintenance and champerty formed part of their qualifying legal education. These were only abolished in 1967 after 500 years. Subsequent progress has been
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
