- A study examined how informing jurors that a plaintiff received third-party litigation financing affects juror perceptions and verdict decisions. - The study found that informing jurors of litigation financing did not negatively impact verdict decisions or perceptions of a case's merits. - However, it did affect jurors' desires for parties to prevail - jurors favoring the defendant initially were more in favor of the plaintiff after learning of financing.

1. www.vinres.com 1
INTRODUCTION
LITIGATION FINANCING:
LAWYERS NEED NOT WORRY
A STUDY ON HOW LITIGATION FINANCING AFFECTS
JUROR DECISION-MAKING
www.vinres.com
310-531-1700
©2015, Vinson Litigation Finance. All Rights Reserved

2. www.vinres.com 2
Pursuing a lawsuit can be prohibitively expensive. Third party litigation financing has emerged
in the United States as a rapidly growing solution to this financial burden. Litigation financing
allows lawyers to initiate and pursue meritorious cases that their clients may not be able to afford
and helps absorb the financial risks inherent in contingency fee matters. Because the practice is
still in its infancy in the U.S., many trial lawyers, law firms and litigants have not had a significant
amount of experience with this innovative form of funding.
Recently, groups such as The U.S. Chamber of Commerce have suggested that this type of funding
should be disclosed to jurors. This raises an interesting question, “how will jurors react upon
learning that an independent party is funding a plaintiff’s case?”
Until now, the answer to this question was unknown. Research conducted by Vinson Litigation
Finance (VLF), utilizing its proprietary surrogate jury panel (which VLF uses in its VLF
Evaluation ProtocolSM), examined how the disclosure of litigation financing affects the way jurors
perceive a case. Does learning that a plaintiff received litigation financing affect jurors’ verdict
decisions? Does learning that a plaintiff received litigation financing affect the perceived merits
of a case?
METHODOLOGY
Seven hundred thirty-two jury eligible men and women, from all over the United States,
participated in the study. Surrogate jurors, from VLF’s proprietary surrogate jury panel, received
emails inviting them to complete online surveys examining seven cases that had gone to trial. The
case types included: three breach of contract, one trade secret misappropriation, one unfair
business practices, one antitrust and one copyright infringement.

3. www.vinres.com 3
METHODOLOGY
SURROGATE JUROR DEMOGRAPHICS

4. www.vinres.com 4
METHODOLOGY
ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE
Surrogate jurors watched videos embedded in online surveys, portraying an actor reading a script
off of a teleprompter. The scripts contained both plaintiff and defense arguments for each case.
After watching the videos, surrogate jurors were
asked numerous questions regarding each case,
including which side they tended to favor and their
desire for each party to prevail. Upon completing
these questions, surrogate jurors were then told
that an independent third party was funding the
case for the plaintiff.
Surrogate jurors were again asked which side they tended to favor and their desire for each party
to prevail. In addition, surrogate jurors were questioned about their beliefs regarding the fairness
of third party funding and their opinions concerning the merits of each case.
Statistical analyses were
performed to test for differences
between verdict decisions and the
desire for parties to prevail before
and after learning about the third
party funding.
Analyses were also performed to
determine how beliefs regarding
the fairness of funding affect
verdict decisions and whether a
relationship exists between
knowledge of funding and the
perceived merits of a case.

5. www.vinres.com 5
FINDINGS
Results from the research conducted by VLF indicate that if jurors learn a plaintiff has received
third party litigation financing that information does not negatively impact how jurors view the
case. In addition, learning that a plaintiff received funding does not adversely affect jurors’
verdict decisions, and the information may even help the plaintiff’s case.
INSIGHTS
The following information is based on responses provided by the surrogate jurors:
Q. Does informing jurors that the plaintiff received funding affect their verdict decisions?
A. Informing jurors that the plaintiff received funding did not affect verdict decisions.

6. www.vinres.com 6
Q. Is the desire for parties to prevail affected when jurors learn that the plaintiff received funding?
A. Informing jurors that the plaintiff received funding did affect jurors’ desire for parties to
prevail.
 Jurors who were in favor of the defendant before learning that the plaintiff received funding
had an increase in their desire for the plaintiff to prevail after they learned that the plaintiff
received funding.
 Jurors who were in favor of the defendant before learning that the plaintiff received funding
had a decrease in their desire for the defendant to prevail after they learned that the plaintiff
received funding.
86%
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Increase in Desire for Plantiff to Prevail No Change in Desire for Plantiff to Prevail
Percent of Cases Where Desire for The Plantiff to Prevail
Increased
86%
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Decrease in Desire for Defendant to Prevail No Change in Desire for Defendant to Prevail
Percent of Cases Where Desire for The Defendant to Prevail
Decreased

7. www.vinres.com 7
Q. Does the knowledge that the plaintiff received funding affect how jurors perceive the merits of a
case?
A. Informing jurors that the plaintiff received funding did not affect the perceived merits of a
case.
Q. Do jurors’ predispositions to litigation funding affect their desire for parties to prevail?
A. Jurors’ feelings regarding the fairness of funding do affect the desire for parties to prevail.
 Jurors who believe third party funding is fair had a greater desire for the plaintiff to prevail
after they were informed that the plaintiff received funding than before they were informed.
100%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Greater Desire Lesser Desire
Percent of Cases Where Jurors Had a Greater Desire for
Plantiff to Prevail
14%
86%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Affected Perceived Merits Did Not Affect Perceived Merits
Percent of Cases Where Perceived Merits Were Affected

8. www.vinres.com 8
 Jurors who do not believe third party funding is fair had a greater desire for the defendant
to prevail after they were informed that the plaintiff received funding than before they were
informed.
A. Jurors’ feelings regarding the fairness of funding do affect the perceived merits of a case.
 Jurors who believe third party funding is fair feel that if a plaintiff received funding then the
plaintiff’s case would have more merit.
86%
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
More Merit Less Merit
Percent of Cases Where Jurors Feel Plantiff's Case Has
More Merit
86%
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Greater Desire Lesser Desire
Percent of Cases Where Jurors Had A Greater Desire For
Defendant to Prevail

9. www.vinres.com 9
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to shed light on the effects that disclosing third party litigation financing has
on juror perceptions and verdict decisions. The research conducted by VLF demonstrates that knowledge
of funding does not hurt a plaintiff’s case and may actually help. A juror’s predisposition to the respective
parties and his or her internal beliefs regarding funding have greater effects on verdict decisions than
knowledge of the funding. Disclosing that a plaintiff received financing from a third party does not
outweigh the benefits of receiving funding. Therefore, lawyers need not worry about jurors learning that
their case has been funded by third party litigation financing.
ABOUT VINSON LITIGATION FINANCE
Vinson Litigation Finance (VLF) is a United States-based financial services firm providing capital for the
funding of meritorious commercial litigation.
VLF is the only litigation finance company that employs a scientific approach in its analysis of case risk.
Known as the VLF Evaluation ProtocolSM VLF’s proprietary technology uses sophisticated statistical and
mathematical techniques to assess the merits of a claim and the potential for financial success.
Founded in 2011 by Dr. Donald E. Vinson, known as the “founding father” of the trial consulting industry,
VLF’s core team is comprised of professionals with over 35 years of experience in trial strategy, case
management, business, insurance and financial risk management in addition to the social and behavioral
sciences.
Providing capital for litigation is a natural extension of the company’s collective experience.
Clients who retain VLF obtain a rigorous analysis of their case before substantial resources have been
expended. Positive results from the VLF Evaluation ProtocolSM are validation that a claim is worth litigating.
Less favorable results offer clients another value-added piece of information to take into account when
making decisions about whether or not to pursue litigation.