Opinion ID: 1179764
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the restatement (third) governing lawyers

Text: Support for the dissent's view is found in the tentative draft of the Restatement (Third) Governing Lawyers, [25] § 48, which restricts advances to clients to circumstances in which the client needs financial assistance to avoid a coerced settlement. Comment d to § 48 notes that while loans to clients beyond litigation expenses are forbidden in most jurisdictions, they are justified when needed to help a financially pressed client proceed with a suit rather than accepting whatever settlement may be offered. A client whose resources may have been depleted by an injury giving rise to a suit may have difficulty obtaining food, clothing, shelter and medical treatment during protracted litigation. The same comment adds that banks and other lending institutions will usually be unwilling to lend on the security of a lawsuit because assessing the claim's probable worth is often difficult and champerty law may prohibit acquiring an interest in the cause of action as security. The text of the cited comment concludes that on balance, it is better for the loan to be permitted than for the client to be saved from conflicts of interest but forced by need to abandon the suit. [26] I would, as the dissent urges, favor a reexamination of Rule 1.8(e) in light of the quoted tentative draft of Restatement (Third). But today, I would counsel the court either (a) to await the final text of Restatement before launching an all-out legislative drive [27] for the Rule's change or (b) to have a Bar committee formulate an interim revision of Rule 1.8(e) to become effective pending adoption of the final text of Restatement.