Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill adds a new section to Title 28 requiring parties and their counsel in civil cases to disclose any non‑counsel person who has a contingent right to payments tied to the case outcome, and to produce related agreements. Exceptions cover repayment of loan principal, limited interest (the higher of 7% or twice the prior year’s average 30‑year Treasury yield), and attorney fee reimbursement.
Liberals emphasize disclosure revealing hidden influence; conservatives emphasize chilling commercial financing
Narrow procedural reform with bipartisan appeal to transparency, but industry and plaintiff‑bar pushback likely.
The bill adds a new section to Title 28 requiring parties and their counsel in civil cases to disclose any non‑counsel person who has a contingent right to payments tied to the case outcome, and to produce related agreements.
Exceptions cover repayment of loan principal, limited interest (the higher of 7% or twice the prior year’s average 30‑year Treasury yield), and attorney fee reimbursement.
Disclosures must be made within 10 days of executing the agreement or at filing, and must be supplemented if materially incorrect.
Technically narrow and administrable, so plausible, but stakeholder opposition and Senate procedural barriers reduce odds.
How solid the drafting looks.
Liberals emphasize disclosure revealing hidden influence; conservatives emphasize chilling commercial financing
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize disclosure revealing hidden influence; conservatives emphasize chilling commercial financing
Likely supportive overall because the bill increases transparency about third‑party funding and potential conflicts of interest.
Views it as a tool to reveal hidden influence in litigation and protect public interest litigation integrity.
Generally favorable to transparency but concerned about administrative burdens and unintended effects on access to financing.
Would favor judicial safeguards and narrowly tailored exemptions.
Skeptical overall; sees the bill as federal expansion of procedure that risks harming commercial confidentiality and chilling third‑party investment.
Prefers less intrusive or state‑level solutions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow and administrable, so plausible, but stakeholder opposition and Senate procedural barriers reduce odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize disclosure revealing hidden influence; conservatives emphasize chilling commercial financing
Technically narrow and administrable, so plausible, but stakeholder opposition and Senate procedural barriers reduce odds.
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Litigation Transparency Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.