Whose Client Is It Anyway? Third-Party Litigation Funding And Limits Of Advocate Independence In India

Full Text Link

Christina K, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

ABSTRACT

Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) finds itself in a murky realm under Indian law: it is not outlawed or regulated, yet it was granted judicial sanction by the Supreme Court, which forbids advocates from financing litigation, while permitting other funders, notably those non-lawyers, to do so for a share of the profits of litigation. This permissiveness is welcomed as it enlarges access to justice, but what remains to be looked at is the effect on lawyers independence once the interests of sponsors get embedded in the case. Meanwhile, Rules 18, 20, 21, and 22 of the Bar Council of India that were framed to monitor the stakes of lawyers in litigation remain silent on third-party financing arrangements. Using examples from jurisdictions like Singapore and the UK, this paper studies if current BCI Rules consider the independence of lawyers when there is a financier involved, whether the foreign safeguards can be introduced by virtue of Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act 1961, and whether the above-mentioned safeguards can be implemented without sacrificing the access to justice function of TPLF.

Keywords: Third-party funding, professional conduct, fund-control, legal ethics, advocate independence.

50. WHOSE CLIENT IS IT ANYWAY_ THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION FUNDING AND LIMITS OF ADVOCATE INDEP

Download WHOSE CLIENT IS IT ANYWAY_ THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION FUNDING AND LIMITS OF ADVOCATE INDEP • 334KB