To enact sections 1357.01, 1357.011, 1357.02, 1357.03, 1357.04, 1357.05, 1357.06, 1357.07, and 1357.08 and to repeal section 1349.55 of the Revised Code to revise and supplement state regulations concerning non-recourse litigation funding agreements.
SB 10 creates a new chapter of the Revised Code regulating litigation funding agreements in Ohio, with separate rules for consumer litigation funding and commercial litigation financing. The bill defines key terms, sets disclosure and contract-form requirements, and establishes limits on what funders may charge and how they may interact with claimants, attorneys, and medical providers. It also repeals existing section 1349.55, replacing it with a more detailed statutory framework.
For consumer litigation funding, the bill requires clear written contracts, front-page disclosures, a 10-business-day cancellation right, attorney acknowledgments, and prohibitions on referral fees, misleading advertising, interference with litigation decisions, and charges above 10% per year of the funded amount. It also makes violations unfair or deceptive acts under Ohio consumer law, gives consumers a private right of action, and renders noncompliant agreements unenforceable. For commercial litigation financing, the bill bars foreign-domiciled funding, prohibits financing of sealed or protected materials, requires disclosure of agreements to parties and insurers, and authorizes the attorney general to seek equitable relief, including barring violators from doing business in Ohio.
The bill would significantly expand and codify state regulation of litigation finance contracts by creating new statutory definitions, disclosure duties, enforceability rules, and enforcement mechanisms. It would affect consumer litigation funders, commercial litigation financiers, attorneys, law firms, claimants, insurers, and certain medical providers by restricting fees, referrals, and control over litigation, while also requiring disclosure of funding arrangements in civil cases. The measure would also reinforce liens and priority rules for funded claims and expressly preserve Ohio’s policy against champerty and maintenance.
The bill’s stated purpose is regulatory and protective rather than permissive, reflecting a generally skeptical view of litigation funding. The text expressly says the General Assembly intends to preserve and reinforce the public policy against champerty and maintenance, and to address concerns about foreign actors and interference in Ohio courts. No committee transcript or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded debate or vote-based sentiment to summarize beyond the bill’s own framing.
The main points of contention likely involve the scope and restrictiveness of the new rules, especially the 10% annual charge cap, the mandatory attorney acknowledgments, and the enforceability penalty for violations. Consumer funders may object to the cancellation right, disclosure obligations, and limits on fees, while commercial financiers may object to the foreign-domicile ban, mandatory disclosure to opposing parties and insurers, and the prohibition on influencing litigation strategy. Attorneys and claimants may also be concerned about confidentiality, privilege, and how the bill interacts with contingency-fee practice and existing professional conduct rules.