Ethics/Professional Responsibility
Nov. 9, 2026
AB 2039 and the cost of carrying a case: California's new interest ban raises novel ethics questions
AB 2039's prohibition on charging clients interest leaves an unsettled question: May lawyers pass through actual third-party financing costs, or must they absorb the expense of funding litigation?
Heather L. Rosing
Founding Partner
Rosing Pott & Strohbehn
Legal Malpractice (Specialist), Business Law
501 W Broadway, A380
San Diego , CA 92101
Phone: (619) 990-5566
Email: hrosing@rosinglaw.com
Northwestern Univ School of Law
Heather serves as the chairperson of the Legal Ethics and Law Firm Risk Management Practice Group, as well as the Lawyers and Accountants Practice Group. She is an appointed advisor to the State Bar of California's Rules Revision Commission.
David M. Majchrzak
Partner
Rosing Pott & Strohbehn
Litigation, Legal Ethics
501 W Broadway A380
San Diego , CA 92101-3584
Email: dmajchrak@rosinglaw.com
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
David practices in the areas of legal ethics and litigation of professional liability claims.
Recently, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2039 into law, significantly reinforcing California's prohibition on capping and broadening regulation of financial advances between lawyers and clients. The legislation followed years of significant public scrutiny surrounding improper solicitation and financial arrangements in high-value claims. The statutory fix, however, may come with unexpected costs of implementation.
Business and Professions Code section 6149.6, enacted by...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In