Resources

State of Oregon FORMAL OPINION NO. 2005-97Questions:1. May Lawyer charge 18% annual interest if a client expressly agrees to it as part of the fee agreement?2. What interest rate may Lawyer charge in the absence of an interest rate agreement?3. If no agreement concerning a charge of 18% is reached, may Lawyer amend the fee agreement to include an 18% per annum charge by stating on a bill sent to the client that, in the future, the client must begin to pay 18% per annum if payment is not receive

State of Ohio ETHICS OPINION 2001-3 1. A lawyer may obtain a loan from a third party lending company provided that the loan is not secured by the client´s interest in any settlement or judgment. This provision does not prohibit the lending company from securing the loan through the borrowing attorney´s fee on the case. The client should also be informed of the loan and his or her consent should be obtained by the borrowing attorney/firm. 2. It is proper for the borrowing attorney to deduct the

State of North Carolina 2006 Formal Ethics Opinion 12October 20, 2006Obtaining a Loan to Fund Litigation Costs Opinion explores the circumstances under which a lawyer may obtain litigation funding from a financing company. Inquiry #1: ABC Litigation Funding (hereinafter “ABC”) is a company that offers non-recourse loans to personal injury lawyers who need to borrow funds for expenses advanced in contingency cases. Lawyer is interested in obtaining financing for a large personal injury case for

State of New York ETHICS OPINION 754-2/25/02 1. It is ethical for an attorney to borrow funds from a third party lender to cover litigation expenses, or to fund his law practice. 2. The interest charged by the lender to a lawyer on the funds borrowed by the lawyer to fund litigation expenses may be passed on to the client as a legitimate litigation expense if certain conditions are met: A. the client must remain ultimately liable for expenses paid under DR 5-103(b)(1), B. the lawyer can not hav

State of New Jersey ETHICS OPINION 603 1. It is ethical for an attorney to borrow funds from a third party lending company to cover litigation expenses, or to fund his law practice. 2. It is ethical for that attorney to pass on to the client, as an appropriate litigation expense, any interest and charges on any such loan, to the extent of that portion of the loan which funded that client´s case. New Jersey Ethics Opinion 603 is copied in its entirety below: The inquirer asks our opinion concern

State of New Hampshire PRACTICAL ETHICS ARTICLE: MAY 21, 1987 The New Hampshire Bar authorities do not officially address the ethics of an attorney borrowing funds from a third party funding company. However, Practical Ethics Article: May 21, 1987 (“Law Firm Use of Outside Services Providers”) acknowledges and supports opinions that have condoned attorney borrowing from financial companies to fund litigation. Excerpts from Massachusetts Ethics Opinion 83-7: The Article stresses the caveat that

State of Nevada Formal Opinion No. 36January 7, 2007 QUESTIONS 1.  Do the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct preclude an attorney from financing litigation costs through a loan obtained from a third-party lending institution in which the attorney is obligated to repay the loan and the client is in turn obligated to reimburse the attorney for litigation costs? 2.  May the separate agreement requiring the client to be responsible for litigation expenses also require the client to reimburse coun

State of Nebraska Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 00-2An opinion of the advisory committee has been requested as to whether it is ethical for a lawyer to refer a client to a business which advances money to the client for litigation or living or living expense purposes in exchange for an equity position in the client’s case. The lender will expect a lien on the proceeds of the lawsuit or the settled claim and above-market interest plus service fees. Restatement of Facts: The A

State of Missouri Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession Misconduct Opinion Number: 20030022 – Rule Number: 8.4QUESTION: Attorney’s firm proposes to borrow money from a non-lawyer for the purpose of funding expenses in mass tort litigation. The loan will be on a non-recourse basis. The firm’s duty to repay would be based on successful prosecution of the cases as a whole, but not on the recovery of any individual case. ANSWER: Generally, it is permissible for the law firm toborrow money fro

State of Minnesota Vol. 61, No. 5 | May/June 2004 Presettlement Funding Agreements: Benefit or BurdenBy Kenneth L. Jorgensen Generally, lawyers are prohibited from providing financial assistance to clients. See Rule 1.8(e), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. An exception to this rule permits lawyers to advance the costs and expenses of litigation and make the repayment contingent upon the outcome of the client’s case. Although lawyers cannot directly lend money to clients, another exception

State of Michigan RI-336October 7, 2005SYLLABUS The Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct do not preclude a lawyer from financing litigation costs through a loan from a third-party lending institution provided the lawyer discloses to the client the terms and conditions of the loan and the client consents in a written contingent fee agreement, upon conclusion the client receives a written statement reflecting interest advanced by the lawyer and charged to the client as an expense in the matter,

State of Arizona Comments: The Arizona ethics committee in various opinions has rendered guidance to attorneys that litigation funding is both proper and ethical where client confidences and attorney independent judgment are maintained. They also advise that interest charges can be passed to a client upon full disclosure and written consent. Excerpts from “Ethics opinion 01-07 09/2001; Advancing fund to clients; loans; costs and expenses of litigation; financial institutions; interest; confide

State of Maryland Ethics Docket 98-23 Charging Client for the Cost of Bank Loan for Advances and/or Charging Interest on Advances for Use of Attorney’s Funds. In your letter you state that your standard contingent fee agreement provides that the client assumes a non-contingent responsibility for the court costs and expenses of litigation incurred on the client’s behalf. Such costs and expenses are advanced by you, and they are funded by utilizing your bank line of credit or from your own funds.

State of Maine ETHICS OPINION #177 1. It is ethical for an attorney to borrow funds from a third party lending company to cover litigation expenses, or to fund his law practice The costs, fees and interest from the litigation loan may be passed on to the client, provided that: A. The interest rate is reasonable, and the lawyer does not profit financially from the third party lending arrangement. B. The lawyer must explain the terms of the loan to the client. C. Client confidences may not be di

Commonwealth of Massachusetts ETHICS OPINION 83-7 1. It is ethical for an attorney to borrow funds from a third party lending company to cover litigation expenses, or to fund his law practice Excerpts from Massachusetts Ethics Opinion 83-7: Facts: The committee has received two inquiries. In the first, an attorney who represents the plaintiff in a personal injury case inquires if he may borrow funds from a chartered lending company to help defray the costs and expenses of the litigation, suppor

Commonwealth of Louisiana Ethics Opinions CHITTENDEN V. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO., 788 SO. 2D 1140 ( LA.), REH. DEN., 2001 LEXIS 2154 ( LA. 2001) 1. It is ethical for an attorney to borrow funds from a third party lending company to cover litigation expenses, or to fund his law practice. 2. The cost of the fees and interest associated with the loan may be passed to the client provided that the client consents in writing to the loan and its charges/interest rate. Please reference your loca

State of Kentucky KBA E-42011/15/02Subject: Lawyer Borrowing Litigation Costs and Granting Lender a Security Interest in Lawyer’s Contingent Fee Question 1: May a lawyer who represents a client under a contingent fee contract borrow funds from a lending institution to cover litigation expenses?Answer: Yes, subject to the cautions set forth below. Question 2: May the lawyer pass the interest on the loan (along with other related fees) on to the client by deducting them from the proceeds of a jud

State of Kansas OPINION No. 94-08; August 16, 1994Topic: Assignment of lawyer’s accounts receivable Digest: The proposal to assign client accounts to a bank in return for a discounted loan may be permissible but amounts to self-dealing for the attorney and is not permissible under the Model Rules unless there is consent, after full disclosure, by the client, which under Kansas case law may require independent advice of counsel. We feel such an assignment, if undertaken, should be restricted to

State of Georgia Comments The Georgia ethics committee in various opinions has rendered guidance to attorneys that litigation funding is ethical where client confidences and attorney independent judgment are maintained. They also advise that interest charges can be passed to a client upon full disclosure and written consent. Excerpts from FORMAL ADVISORY OPINION NO. 05-5 Approved And Issued On February 13, 2007 Pursuant To Bar Rule 4-403 By Order Of The Supreme Court Of Georgia Thereby Replaci

State of Hawaii Comments An arrangement whereby an attorney refers a client to a bank or other lending institution to obtain a loan for legal fees and costs is generally regarded as consistent with the attorney’s duty to make legal services available, thus preserving the integrity and independence of the legal profession. In making such a referral, an attorney need not determine that the credit arrangements are fair to the client or otherwise become involved in such arrangements. An attorney m

State of Illinois Illinois State Bar AssociationCHARGING INTEREST ON ADVANCED EXPENSES TO CLIENT ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional ConductOpinion No. 94-06 July, 1994 ISBA Advisory Opinions on Professional Conduct are prepared as an educational service to members of the ISBA. While the Opinions express the ISBA interpretation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and other relevant materials in response to a specific hypothesized fact situation, they do not have the weight of law an

State of Colorado Comments It is the opinion of the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee that the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits the unilateral charging of interest by an attorney on a delinquent account for legal services, unless there has been a prior agreement between the attorney and the client which specifically states both the amount of interest and the time periods under which interest would be imposed. This opinion is a logical extension of Formal Opinion 338 of the

State of Florida Comments For purposes of this inquiry, the Committee assumes that the professional services have been completed and the fee fixed and agreed upon. The assignment of a receivable representing a fee for professional services immediately raises concern about the confidential relationship between lawyer and client, including such confidential matters as the client’s need for legal services and amount of the fee owed for such services. Such assignment also poses ethical problems sho

State of Connecticut Informal Opinion 99-42September 17, 1999Connecticut Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics. Advance Of Funds To Client By Third Party: The requester has asked for the opinion of this committee concerning whether it would be unethical for his office to participate in or to encourage his clients to participate in a program in which a Florida corporation has offered to advance money to personal injury claimants secured by the claimant’s potential recovery in the pers

State of California Comments The Committee interprets the inquiry to ask not about the ethicality of charging interest on costs advanced when they have already been billed to the client and become past due, but, rather, about the ethicality of charging interest from the time they are paid by the lawyer until the time they are billed. As to the former query, the Committee has previously stated that it is not improper for a lawyer, with the prior agreement of the client, to impose a reasonable in

Taxotere is an intravenous chemotherapy drug developed and manufactured by Sanofi.[1] The FDA approved the drug in 1996 for the treatment of breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, advanced stomach cancer, head and neck cancer and prostate cancer.[2]

Viagra (sildenafil citrate) was introduced by Pfizer in 1998, and it has become one of the most widely recognized brand-name medications on the market in the United States—used by millions of men to treat impotence and sexual erectile dysfunction (“ED”).

gazprom.com PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), an international accounting firm, and The Citco Group Ltd. (“Citco”), a financial services group, are back at the center of a class action led by investors in several feeder funds that invested in the historic Ponzi scheme architected by Bernie Madoff. The action pleads federal securities law and state law violations arising out of PwC’s role as auditor of the funds and Citco’s part as the funds’ administrator and custodian.  On March 3, 2015, a ju

A jury in Bakersfield, California, has returned a $5.7 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, Ethicon Inc., after finding that Ethicon’s TVT Abbrevo transvaginal mesh device was defectively designed and that Ethicon failed to warn doctors of the risks associated with the product. The lead plaintiff in the case, Coleen Perry, a retired caterer, was implanted with the TVT Abbrevo system in 2011 to treat stress urinary incontinence. Within one year of implantation, Mrs.

Plaintiffs around the country have filed claims for injuries sustained after taking the anti-nausea medication, Zofran, originally manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, LLC (“GSK”).[1] Plaintiffs in the Zofran litigation claim that prenatal exposure to the drug caused their children to be born with severe birth defects and that the defendant drug manufacturers (1) “unlawfully promoted Zofran for ‘off-label’ use during pregnancy; (2) hid evidence that Zofran can increase the risk for congenital defects; and (3) failed to warn the public of Zofran’s alleged risks.”[2]