1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |New Jersey District Court Adopts Rule Requiring Broad Disclosure of Litigation Funding

New Jersey District Court Adopts Rule Requiring Broad Disclosure of Litigation Funding

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.07.21

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey adopted a new local rule, starting on June 21, 2021, requiring disclosure by litigants regarding the use of litigation funding. While several federal courts have implemented rules requiring disclosure of the existence and identity of litigation funders, New Jersey’s rule goes much further, requiring all parties to further disclose:

  • the scope of the funder’s rights to approve of litigation decisions or settlement decisions; and
  • a brief description of the funder’s financial interest in the litigation.

The new rule is designed to promote transparency in the litigation process and thereby ferret out the “true” decisionmakers in the litigation. It may be used to prevent ethical violations by counsel as well as to ensure compliance with state laws against champerty and maintenance.

The new rule contains a number of ambiguities, however, that raise concerns that it may unnecessarily delay the litigation by increasing the frequency of motion practice over discovery. For example, following the mandatory disclosures cited above, the new rule specifically contemplates the possibility of further discovery upon a showing of “good cause,” or where “such other disclosure is necessary to any issue in the case.”

In addition, as drafted, the rule may require disclosure of contingency-based attorney engagements, as it requires disclosure of “any person or entity that is not a party” who is funding litigation costs in exchange for “a contingent financial interest based upon the results of the litigation.” Similarly, the rule may encompass common contractual indemnification agreements, as it requires disclosure of non-parties providing litigation funding in exchange for any “non-monetary result that is not in the nature of a personal or bank loan, or insurance.”

The new rule goes into effect immediately, applies to all pending cases, and requires the filing of the required disclosures on or before August 5, 2021. In the coming year, New Jersey federal courts will likely be called upon to resolve a number of disputes over the scope and effect of the new rule.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights