Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Florida Senate committee advances bill requiring notice of third‑party and foreign litigation funding
Summary
The Judiciary Committee voted to report SB 13‑96 favorably after testimony from industry groups supporting transparency and opponents warning the measure could advantage defendants; the bill requires courts be notified of litigation financing and mandates disclosure of foreign funders in certain circumstances (7‑2).
The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 28 advanced SB 13‑96, a measure that would require disclosure to courts when plaintiffs use third‑party litigation financing and mandate additional disclosure when a foreign entity participates.
Vice Chair K. Burton, who sponsored the bill in committee, said it divides into two parts: a consumer‑protection regime restricting funders from taking a greater share of proceeds than plaintiffs recover and a disclosure requirement when a foreign entity meets defined thresholds. “It’s great information,” Burton said, arguing disclosure helps protect the integrity of the state’s legal process while not banning financing.
Supporters emphasized risks posed by opaque funding. Robert Schulte of the Florida Justice Reform Institute described “litigation harvesting” uncovered in Louisiana and said outside investment funds had contributed roughly $30 million to portfolios that were mass‑soliciting claims; he urged the committee to adopt SB 13‑96 because it increases court awareness without prohibiting funding.
Caroline Gieser of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, representing the American Tort Reform Association, said Georgia and nearly a dozen other states have enacted stricter rules; she argued the bill’s guardrails protect plaintiffs and the ethical duty of lawyers. “Left unchecked and undisclosed, third‑party litigation funders may influence the choice of an attorney, litigation decisions, and even whether a case should settle or go to trial,” Gieser said.
Opponents, including Bill Cotterell of the Florida Justice Association, warned the bill focuses on plaintiffs and not defendants, noting defendants may also receive outside funding. Cotterell argued disclosure could create strategic advantages for defense counsel and questioned whether plaintiff lawyers would always know about all funding sources.
Sen. Polsky pressed sponsors on scope: the bill requires informing the court when any litigation financing is present and triggers expanded disclosure only if a foreign entity meets the bill’s threshold. Burton said the measure does not require disclosing contract details but does require identifying foreign participants to guard against potential undue foreign influence.
After closing remarks from Burton and noting a mix of waivers from industry groups on both sides, the committee called the roll. The clerk recorded seven yeas and two nays; by that vote SB 13‑96 was reported favorably to the next committee or chamber reference.
What’s next: The bill will move on with the committee’s favorable recommendation; the measure’s disclosure thresholds and any technical amendments remain subject to negotiation in later committee stops.
