N.Y. Supreme Court (Commercial Division) · US (NY) · 2015 · Decided
Citation/Docket: 2015 WL 4920281 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 17, 2015)
Posture: Funder vs. funded law firm
Funder(s) involved: Hamilton Capital
A law firm resisted repaying a credit facility secured by its receivables, arguing the arrangement was impermissible fee-splitting with a non-lawyer.
Enforced, a loan secured by receivables is not fee-splitting; public policy supports law firm access to capital.
Law-firm portfolio lending structured as secured credit (not profit shares) has survived Rule 5.4 attacks in NY courts, though NYC Bar Op. 2018-5 later criticized proceeds-contingent versions.
The NYC Bar's Formal Opinion 2018-5 later took a more critical view of proceeds-contingent versions of this lending structure, narrowing how comfortably similar arrangements can be papered going forward.
Matters like this one often turn on expert testimony, on valuation, industry custom and practice, legal ethics, or damages. The Institute partners with world-class expert witness referral companies for this purpose.
Compiled from public sources (court filings, published opinions, and secondary reporting) as part of the Institute's Phase 1 Dispute Library research. This is educational material, not legal advice; case citations should be independently verified before relied upon.