Most of what gets written about litigation finance is commentary. This page collects the underlying documents: the government reports, congressional testimony, court rule proposals, bar association opinions, and international studies that actually set the terms of the debate and, increasingly, the rules.
Every document here is free to read. We give you what it is, who issued it, what it concluded, and why it matters if you are funding a case or seeking funding for one. Where a document is contested or reflects an interested party's position, we say so.
This is the companion to our Foundational Scholarship page, which covers the academic literature. Nothing here is legal advice, and regulatory material dates quickly, so confirm anything current with counsel before relying on it.
The federal government's own assessment of the industry, covering roughly 2017 through 2021. Among its central conclusions: no federal law specifically regulates third-party litigation financing, a minority of states impose limits on fees or interest rates or other requirements, and while some individual courts require disclosure of funding, there is no national rule. The report is also candid that reliable market data is scarce, which is itself a finding worth noting whenever you see a confident industry statistic. Why it matters: the most neutral single overview of the U.S. market that exists, useful precisely because GAO has no stake in the outcome. Full report.
A narrower follow-on study focused specifically on funded patent litigation, which is one of the largest and most scrutinized segments of the market. Why it matters: if your matter is patent or IP related, this is the sector-specific federal data, and it is the document that disclosure advocates most often cite when arguing that patent funding warrants special treatment. Full report.
The first significant congressional hearing devoted to litigation funding. Maya Steinitz submitted written testimony, followed by written answers to post-hearing questions, and both are freely available. Why it matters: a compact and current statement of where federal legislative attention is pointed, and the clearest signal available of what a future federal disclosure regime might look like. Steinitz written testimony.
On October 10, 2024, the Judicial Conference's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules formed a subcommittee to study whether the Federal Rules should require disclosure of third-party litigation funding. In November 2025 the Committee agreed to continue that study. Proposals before the subcommittee, including a joint suggestion from Lawyers for Civil Justice and the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, would amend Rule 26(a)(1)(A) to require parties to disclose at the outset of a case both the identity of any nonparty funder with a financial interest and the agreements defining that interest. Why it matters: this is the single most consequential live regulatory development for anyone taking funding in federal court. Federal rulemaking is slow, often several years from study to adoption, but if a uniform disclosure rule arrives, it will arrive through this process. Assume your funding agreement could become disclosable and structure accordingly. The LCJ and ILR Rule 26 suggestion. Note that this proposal comes from organizations that represent defense-side and corporate interests, which is relevant context, not a reason to discount it.
Formed in October 2018 and composed of roughly 25 lawyers, law professors, and litigation finance executives, the Working Group studied the industry for about seventeen months. Its report addresses the ethics rules governing funding of lawyers and law firms, current market practices and suggested guidelines, disclosure, and consumer funding as a distinct category. It broadly endorsed the practice, proposed amendments to New York's Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 to permit less restricted access to funding, and concluded that plaintiffs should in most circumstances not be required to disclose third-party funding interests. Why it matters: the most thorough bar association treatment of funding ethics in the country, and the document most often cited in arguments about what lawyers may and may not do when a funder is involved. Full report.
A formal ethics opinion addressing what obligations a lawyer takes on when advising a client about a proposed funding agreement. Why it matters: the most directly practical document on this page for practicing lawyers. If a client asks you to review a funding agreement, this opinion describes the ethical terrain you are entering. Full opinion.
Testimony on then-pending New York bills regulating consumer litigation finance, the small-dollar advances made to individual plaintiffs that are a different business from commercial claim funding. Two proposals stand out: establishing a guaranteed "Minimum Payment" to the plaintiff rather than relying only on flat rate or interest caps, and defining which transactions get regulated by applying an "Unsophisticated Plaintiff" test instead of drawing the line at a dollar figure. The testimony also addresses prepayment penalties, funder registration, rescission rights, and whether lawyers should give clients financial advice. A follow-up research memorandum to Senator Ortt is also public. Why it matters: consumer funding is where the genuine predatory-pricing risk in this industry sits, and this is the clearest available account of what sensible regulation would target. If you are an individual being offered an advance against a personal injury claim, the Minimum Payment idea is the concept to understand. Free full text on SSRN. See also our article Mass Tort and Consumer Legal Funding.
The definitive international document on funding in arbitration, produced over several years by a task force convened by the International Council for Commercial Arbitration and Queen Mary University of London, chaired by Stavros Brekoulakis, William W. Park, and Catherine A. Rogers. It works through the definition of funding, disclosure and conflicts of interest, privilege, costs and security for costs, and the treatment of funding in investment treaty arbitration. Why it matters: if your matter is an international arbitration, this is the framework tribunals and institutions actually reference. Disclosure expectations in arbitration are meaningfully different from those in U.S. litigation, and this report is where that difference is set out. ICCA. See also our article International Arbitration Funding.
Commissioned by the European Commission in response to the European Parliament's 2022 resolution, carried out by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law and Civic Consulting with the Asser Institute and Risk & Policy Analysts. It runs past 700 pages, covers every EU member state plus Canada, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and draws on 231 stakeholder contributions across funders, law firms, businesses, consumer organizations, public authorities, the judiciary, and academics. Maya Steinitz served as national expert for the United States. The study lays out three policy options without endorsing one: no regulation, light-touch regulation, and strict regulation. Why it matters: the most current and comprehensive comparative survey of funding regulation anywhere, and the document that will shape whatever the EU does next. Useful to U.S. readers as a mirror, since it describes the American market from the outside. European Commission.
The resolution that started the current European regulatory process, calling on the Commission to propose legislation regulating third-party funding across the EU. The annexed draft directive is the source of the widely discussed proposals, including a cap on the share of proceeds a funder may take and mandatory authorization of funders. Why it matters: the specific proposals in the annex, particularly the fee cap, are the ones the industry is organized against, and they remain the reference point for every European regulatory conversation. Official Journal text. See also our article Europe's Push to Regulate.
A few things worth keeping in mind. Most documents in this area are produced by parties with a position: insurers and defense organizations generally favor mandatory disclosure and funder registration, funders and much of the plaintiffs' bar generally oppose both. GAO and the European Commission study are the closest things to neutral surveys on this page. Bar association opinions sit somewhere in between, since they are written by committees that usually include practitioners on both sides.
Second, the consumer side and the commercial side of this industry are genuinely different businesses, and material written about one frequently gets applied to the other by people who do not realize they have changed subjects. A rate cap that makes sense for a $3,000 advance against a car accident claim makes no sense applied to an $8 million commercial claim investment, and vice versa.
Third, the disclosure question is unsettled and moving. Anything you read about whether funding agreements are discoverable should be checked against the current rule in your specific jurisdiction before you rely on it.
If we have mischaracterized a document, or omitted one that belongs here, we would like to know.