Elite U.S. universities embroiled in a sprawling antitrust lawsuit are zeroing in on the financial backers of the plaintiffs’ law firm, turning a routine class certification fight into a courtroom clash over the influence of third-party funding.
At the center of the storm is Gilbert Litigators & Counselors (GLC), a law firm representing over 200,000 current and former students alleging that schools including Cornell, MIT, Georgetown, Notre Dame, and the University of Pennsylvania illegally favored wealthy applicants. The schools argue that GLC’s reliance on outside funding undercuts its claim of assuming financial risk—an unusual line of attack in class action proceedings.
GLC pushed back, calling the universities’ claims “contrived,” noting that its funding only covers a fraction of its legal fees and that courts have not required disclosure of such arrangements. The firm emphasized that it operates on a contingency basis, accepting “substantial risk” alongside its funders.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly in Chicago has acknowledged the potential relevance of these funding arrangements, though the full arguments from the universities remain under seal. Experts say the scrutiny of litigation financing in the context of class counsel adequacy is largely uncharted territory.
Meanwhile, separate developments in the legal world highlight a surge in consolidation and tech-driven innovation. Frost Brown Todd is merging with New Jersey’s Gibbons to create an 800-lawyer powerhouse across 25 offices. Investor enthusiasm is also ramping up for AI startups serving plaintiff-side law firms, with valuations soaring above $1 billion for companies promising to streamline legal work.
Despite the legal wrangling, some defendants—including Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Dartmouth, and Columbia—have already agreed to settlements totaling nearly $320 million, all while denying any wrongdoing. For the remaining schools, the fight over class counsel and financial backing continues to unfold, setting the stage for what may be a precedent-setting interpretation of risk and transparency in high-stakes litigation.
