Link to original WordPerfect Document

                                         120 N.J.L.J. 252
                                        July 30, 1987


Appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey


Advancing the Costs of
Litigation Through Bank Loans

    The inquirer asks our opinion concerning the ethical propriety of the below described provision in a contingency fee arrangement in a tortious conduct matter, where it is appropriate for the firm to advance disbursements, pursuant to RPC 1.8(e), to be reimbursed pursuant to RPC 1.5(c) and R. 1:21-7(d). The proposed provision would be made clear to the client at the outset of the litigation and would be instituted only if the client agreed to the same.
    Under the proposed provision, the inquirer's law firm would borrow the funds to cover the disbursements in the matter from a third party lending institution at the most favorable available interest rate. Upon the favorable outcome of the matter, the firm would reimburse itself for both the principal and interest charges relating to the borrowed funds and presumably would deduct the total from the recovery before computing the net sum subject to the contingency fee arrangement pursuant to R. 1:21-7(c) and (d).
    We find nothing unethical or contrary to the letter or spirit of the rules of the Court, or Rules of Professional Conduct in the proposed provision. This Committee's Opinions 446, 105 N.J.L.J. 105 (1980), and 582, 117 N.J.L.J. 394 (1986) and the Notice to the Bar published in 101 N.J.L.J. 265 (1978) authorizing credit card use for legal fees attest to the recent liberalization of the attitude of the courts and the bar, recognizing that appropriate and reasonable interest charges or credits in various situations are not unethical as long as they are made clear to the client at the outset of the retention and the client agrees to the same.

* * *

This archive is a service of Rutgers University School of Law - Camden