In a dispute involving a founder of successful restaurant Maple & Ash, a law firm is alleged to have pressured their client into a litigation funding agreement before raising their rates to profit from the funds. Image Source: HauteLiving

David Pisor, a Chicago restaurant entrepreneur, is suing King & Spalding and several of its lawyers, alleging the firm inflated fees, mishandled his representation, and steered him into costly litigation funding that primarily benefited the law firm. The lawsuit seeks more than $4m in damages.

Pisor says he retained the firm in 2022 during a dispute with his former business partner over Maple & Ash, a Chicago restaurant that later expanded nationally. According to the complaint, what began as a narrow engagement quickly broadened into extensive litigation and transactional work. Over 11 months, more than 30 lawyers and staff allegedly billed about 3,000 hours and charged more than $3.5m, despite the case never going to trial. The lawsuit claims the firm relied on duplicative billing, unrelated time entries, and senior partners performing routine tasks, turning the matter into an inefficient and costly exercise.

As legal bills mounted, Pisor said he was unable to continue paying. The complaint alleges that King & Spalding then pressured him toward litigation funding from an entity affiliated with Statera Capital Funding.

“The complaint alleges that King & Spalding then pressured him toward litigation funding.”

Pisor claims this financing arrangement was structured to evade protections under the Illinois Consumer Legal Funding Act, imposing significant fees while avoiding statutory limits designed to prevent predatory practices. The lawsuit also alleges the law firm increased its hourly rates after the funding was secured, tying its compensation to the availability of third-party financing.

“The law firm increased its hourly rates after the funding was secured, tying its compensation to the availability of third-party financing.”

This created a conflict of interest in violation of professional ethics rules, as the firm allegedly benefited financially from encouraging Pisor to borrow while escalating its own fees. Pisor further alleges the firm failed to protect his interests in a January 2023 business separation agreement, leaving him without control of the company, liquidity, or access to millions of dollars in tax credits.

The lawsuit also feeds into broader concerns about litigation funding when relationships are driven by lawyers rather than clients, including in cases involving former major litigation funder Therium.

In at least one case they funded, Gharabe v Chevron, Therium retained the right to intervene in any settlement discussion, directly steering the management of the case. Therium has been accused of paying lawyers directly rather than routing funds through claimants, a structure that may concentrate control over legal strategy in the hands of funders.

“Therium has been accused of paying lawyers directly rather than routing funds through claimants, a structure that may concentrate control over legal strategy in the hands of funders.”

While vastly different in scale, the Sulu arbitration can draw similar concerns of funders and lawyers steering clients. While public details about funding arrangements are limited, the case remains a sophisticated claim advanced by experienced lawyers and professional funders on behalf of individual claimants with little familiarity with international arbitration.

In such cases, critics warn, the imbalance of knowledge and leverage can blur the line between client representation and lawyer or funder-driven litigation. Collectively, such lawsuits, along with Pisor’s, raise a central question: whether a financial tool intended to support justice can, in practice, undermine it.

REFERENCES

KnowSulu. (2025, November 11). Corrupt arbitration? Questions grow over Stampa’s ties to Sulu claimants’ lawyers in Spain. https://knowsulu.ph/

KnowSulu. (2025, November 14). Therium’s activity underscores national security risks in litigation funding. https://knowsulu.ph/

Spigolon, T. (2025, December 8). Suit alleges King & Spalding coerced ex-client into litigation funding agreement amid massive overbilling. Law.com. https://www.law.com/