Champerty, Maintenance & Usury Jurisdictional Guide
An authoritative analysis of historical maintenance and champerty doctrines, modern judicial reforms, usury exemptions, and statutory disclosure mandates across the United States and India.
The Medieval Origins
Originally created in medieval England, the doctrines of maintenance (assisting a party in litigation without legal justification) and champerty (maintaining a suit in return for a share of proceeds) were intended to prevent feudal barons from financing frivolous lawsuits to oppress political rivals.
Access to Justice & Corporate Parity
Modern courts recognize that non-recourse litigation finance facilitates access to justice and evens the playing field against well-capitalized defendants, provided that the financier exercises zero control over the trial strategy or settlement terms.
State-by-State Statutory & Case Law Matrix
| Jurisdiction | Champerty & Maintenance Status | Usury Applicability | Disclosure Rules | FMC Platform Safeguards |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York | Permitted under Judiciary Law § 489 safe harbor for transactions exceeding $500,000 (Justinian Capital). | Exempt; non-recourse contingent return is not a loan. | Discoverable only upon specific showing of direct relevance. | Minimum commercial ticket size enforces § 489 compliance; no champertous intent. |
| California | Doctrines abolished by statute (Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court). | Exempt from constitutional usury rate caps. | Voluntary disclosure; governed by local district court rules. | Standard non-interference covenants; strict attorney control clauses. |
| Delaware | Recognized as valid commercial practice (Carlyle Inv. Mgmt.). | Exempt for commercial non-recourse advances. | Mandatory under District Court Standing Order (2022). | Auto-generates standardized Delaware Rule 3(a) disclosure filings upon demand. |
| Florida | Doctrines narrowed; valid provided funder holds no litigation control (Kraft v. Mason). | Contingent recovery exempt from usury ceilings. | Discoverable in insurance bad-faith litigation; protected otherwise. | Mandatory Florida consumer disclosure addendum with 5-day right of rescission. |
| New Jersey | Champerty abolished; third-party financing widely permitted. | Non-recourse funding exempt from general usury restrictions. | Mandatory disclosure under Local Civil Rule 7.1.1 within 30 days. | Automated compliance notification prompting counsel with NJ Rule 7.1.1 pack. |
India Litigation Funding & The Bar Council Barrier
The Privy Council held in Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Canto Mookerjee (1876) that English champerty doctrines do not apply to India. The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed in 2018 (Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji) that commercial third-party litigation funding is legal and binding under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, provided that advocates do not take contingency fees under Bar Council of India Rule 36.