Trending Now
  • ClaimAngel Reports $144M Deployed and 30,000 Fundings on Consumer Legal Funding Marketplace
Commercial Consumer

ClaimAngel Reports $144M Deployed and 30,000 Fundings on Consumer Legal Funding Marketplace

September 24, 2026

ClaimAngel Reports $144M Deployed and 30,000 Fundings on Consumer Legal Funding Marketplace

South Florida consumer legal funding marketplace ClaimAngel says it has deployed more than $144 million across over 30,000 individual fundings since launching in April 2023, positioning standardised pricing as its answer to the cost criticisms that dog the consumer funding sector.

As reported by Refresh Miami, the platform runs a marketplace in which 27 funding providers compete for cases, with funders reserving a case in an average of 11 seconds. Advances carry 27.8% simple interest with no compounding and a 2x cap on total repayment, and remain non-recourse — plaintiffs owe nothing if the case is lost.

The company reports serving more than 14,500 plaintiffs and over 750 law firms, with 46 employees. A Case Equity product lets plaintiffs draw against expected case value for living expenses while litigation is pending.

ClaimAngel was co-founded by Jeremy Alters, a trial lawyer of more than two decades who was disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court in 2018 for misusing client funds, and his son Logan Alters. “I did things wrong. They were my fault. I take full responsibility for it,” Jeremy Alters said, describing the company as “born out of an ethics issue.” He applied for readmission to the Florida Bar in 2025.

Planned expansions include attorney funding, a secondary marketplace for buying and selling existing positions, and AngelScore, a data-driven underwriting system.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Sorren Launches Affiliated US Law Firm as Accounting Groups Expand Into Legal Services

Sorren, a private equity-backed accounting and advisory group, has launched an affiliated US law firm under a management services structure — the latest sign of outside capital moving toward legal services through arrangements that sit outside direct law firm ownership.

As reported by Lawyer Monthly, Sorren Law has been established from Mansfield & Mayo, an existing law firm operating in Nevada and Idaho. The practice covers corporate and business law, mergers and acquisitions, commercial transactions, estate planning, asset protection, tax planning, and litigation and dispute resolution. It is led by attorneys Patrick Mansfield and Massey Mayo.

The structure separates the regulated practice from its commercial infrastructure. Sorren Law is a separately regulated, lawyer-owned law firm, while Sorren Legal Support operates as a management services organisation subsidiary providing administrative and operational support under a management-services agreement. "Sorren and lawyers at Sorren Law are co-invested in the management-services organisation," chief executive Josh Tyree said.

Sorren itself was formed in 2025 through the combination of 13 accounting firms and now employs more than 1,000 people. It is backed by private equity firm DFW Capital Partners, although that investment relationship does not extend to the legal practice.

The launch illustrates how the MSO model is being used to route outside capital toward legal work while preserving lawyer ownership of the firm itself. That same structure is now drawing legislative attention in California, Illinois and Colorado, where lawmakers have moved to restrict the influence outside investors can exert over case decisions.

Commercial

Civil Justice Association Calls California’s AB 2305 a ‘Paper Tiger’ as Litigation Funding Escapes Restriction

Days after Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2305, California's leading civil justice reform group has dismissed the new law as effectively unenforceable — while noting that third-party litigation funding itself remains untouched by it.

As reported by The Center Square, the Civil Justice Association of California said the measure, signed on September 20, will change little in practice. "Unfortunately, this bill is a paper tiger," the group said. "Its weak enforcement mechanism will do little to deter bad actors or prevent outside investors from influencing lawsuits."

CJAC's central objection is the enforcement channel. "Putting the State Bar in charge of policing this conduct is like asking mall cops to take down organized crime," the group said, adding that "the bad conduct is likely to continue. Billboard lawyers and their hidden financial backers will keep gaming our courts, while victims, taxpayers and employers pay the price."

AB 2305 bars private equity firms, hedge funds and corporate legal funders from interfering with an attorney's professional judgment in client representation, court proceedings, trials or settlement negotiations. It carries statutory damages of $10,000 per violation against both the lawyer and the investor, or three times actual damages, whichever is greater.

Critically for the funding industry, the law leaves third-party litigation finance in place. Firms may continue securing loans from equity groups and investors to fund lawsuits, though those funds cannot be used for advertising or recruiting clients. Alternative business structures and management services organizations may still handle general business operations and back-office management.

Commercial

ILFA Analysis Finds Federal Courts Ordered Funding Agreement Production in Just 12% of Disclosure Rulings

A new empirical review of third-party funding disclosure disputes in the federal courts concludes that judges are already applying case-specific standards, and that no court has ever imposed the blanket disclosure regime now under consideration by federal rulemakers.

As reported by The National Law Review, the analysis, authored by Dai Wai Chin Feman for the International Legal Finance Association, examined more than 475 actions involving confirmed funding, suspected funding or contested disclosure motions. From that pool the study identified 163 court orders resolving disclosure motions, drawn from 153 distinct cases.

The headline finding is that courts denied 89 of those motions and granted some form of disclosure in 74. Only 19 orders — 12% of the total — resulted in production of a funding agreement to an opposing party.

Disclosure grants cluster heavily in two practice areas. Intellectual property cases account for 33 of the 74 grants, or 45%, while intellectual property and personal injury/tort matters together account for 48, or 65%.

The study lands in the middle of the pending proposal from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice to amend Rule 26(a)(1)(A) so that funding agreements are produced automatically in every civil case absent entry of a protective order. The authors argue the data undercuts that approach, concluding that "no court has ever ordered what ILR and LCJ's proposed rule would make automatic," and favouring a case-specific alternative instead.