Trending Now
Consumer Special Features

Both Law Firms and Plaintiffs Benefit from the Expanding Consumer Legal Funding Industry

May 20, 2021

Both Law Firms and Plaintiffs Benefit from the Expanding Consumer Legal Funding Industry

The following piece is a contribution by Charles W. Price, CEO of Capital Now Funding, LLC.  The following scenario was once all too common – plaintiffs injured in an accident, waiting impatiently for a complex lawsuit to settle. With the clock ticking and the plaintiff often unable to work, there was little they could do except wait for the phone to ring while medical and other bills kept piling up. Meanwhile, their attorneys must candidly tell them that it will be weeks to months or years before they might receive their settlement money. Faced with this situation, it was not at all surprising that clients grew increasingly frustrated, gradually giving way to worry, fear and anxiety. And dealing with this level of stress, plaintiffs were capable of placing unneeded pressure on their attorneys to settle before the legal process had fully played out. Attorneys, who naturally want to get the best possible settlement for their clients, were often faced with having to settle prematurely even though they knew that a much better resolution could soon be reached. Fortunately, a better solution has emerged in recent years that meets the needs of all parties – Consumer Legal Funding. Consumer Legal Funding is often mislabeled and referred to as a pre-settlement loan or a loan against a lawsuit, but it is not technically a loan. Consumer Legal Funding is legal funding that is advanced from a portion of the consumer’s future settlement proceeds. As defined by Eric Schuller with the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding, providing a client with consumer legal funding is merely the purchase of an asset – a portion of the consumer’s future settlement proceeds. In essence, plaintiffs are borrowing from their own future settlement funds. How Do All Parties Benefit? The real story of consumer legal funding is best viewed in light of the benefits it provides. For the plaintiffs, the benefits include:
  • Immediate, much-needed financial assistance to pay medical, housing and living expenses while their legal claim is in process
  • Zero to no risk to the consumer, since consumer legal funding is non-recourse (which means that if the plaintiff loses the case, they do not have to pay the funding company back)
  • Better relationships with their attorneys, as attorneys generally play a positive role in approving consumer legal funding
  • Avoids the need to turn to other, riskier forms of borrowing, which may result in unnecessary debt
  • Plaintiffs are in a much better position to receive the best possible legal settlement
For attorneys representing the plaintiffs, the benefits include:
  • Reduced pressure to settle a case too soon and accept a settlement that is less than deserved
  • Adequate time to get the best possible outcome for clients
  • Immediate relief for plaintiff clients struggling with bill payments when they may be unable to work due to accident injuries
  • Better relationships with their clients, who need the legal funding as well as the added time for the attorney to properly settle their case
  • Improved communications with their clients during the course of the case, as clients who are under less financial pressure will make for a better settlement outcome
  • More favorable attorney reviews and increased referrals from happier clients
Understanding The Basics of Consumer Legal Funding Once you know how the consumer legal funding process works, it’s easy to see what a valuable solution it is for both plaintiffs and attorneys. Pre-settlement legal funding is a great description of this funding, because the funding company actually provides funds to a plaintiff prior to the legal settlement of their case. The pre-settlement funds are usually taken from the portion of the total funds that will be dispersed at the time the case is settled. Pre-settlement funds are intended to help a plaintiff cover medical and living expenses until the case settles and settlement funds are received. But it all begins with the attorneys. Why Law Firms Should Be Involved In The Process It is essential for the law firm to approve the funding amount given to the plaintiff, as the attorney must confirm that the case is legitimate and has a strong likelihood of being settled favorably. This approval by the attorney is the signal for the funding company that the plaintiff’s case is deserving of legal funding. Pre-settlement funds do not have to be repaid if the plaintiff were to lose the case. Most often, when the plaintiff wins or favorably settles their case, the attorney will repay the pre-settlement amount to the funding company out of the settlement funds at the time the case is settled. Clearly, providing plaintiffs with the ability to receive financial assistance while their legal claim is in process is a benefit when they have nowhere else to turn and no other assets of significance to leverage for capital. As The Consumer Legal Funding Industry Has Evolved, It Has Greatly Improved In the past, some attorneys may have been hesitant to recommend pre-settlement funding for their clients because they may have been concerned over the perception of getting involved in the process, or worried about it from an ethics compliance standpoint. However, over recent years, bar associations and state licensing agencies have upheld, and now agree, that pre-settlement legal funding is a highly beneficial product. Additionally, in the past, when there were not a lot of options for pre-settlement legal funding companies, clients may have been charged unnecessarily high fees and interest on funds with an indefinite payback period. As a result, if the case went on longer than expected, the client could be left with a payoff that was more than their settlement. This just isn’t the case any longer. As the industry has matured and evolved, products and options have improved. States have implemented laws regulating the amount of fees that can be charged by pre-settlement funding companies and have required increased disclosure and transparency. Additionally, the fees being charged have become more competitive, and companies like Capital Now Funding have joined the industry who are dedicated to providing fully transparent payoffs that are fixed for the life of the case with zero interest. What is most essential in order to benefit the consumer is that law firms have access to legal funding companies they trust and can recommend to their clients. It is important that the attorney helps their client properly evaluate the funding company. Always look for a legal funding company with positive reviews, and one that is forthcoming about its fee structure. Everyone Wins As an attorney or law firm, you’re only going to see the benefits of pre-settlement funding if you choose the right consumer legal funding provider. Different providers have different terms and conditions, different fees and interest rates, and different levels of service and communication. Make sure you choose a good fit for you and your clients’ needs. About the Author Charles W. Price is Chief Executive Officer of Capital Now Funding, LLC, a nationwide provider of pre-settlement funding for personal injury cases. Capital Now Funding provides industry leading Fixed Fee funding with zero interest, which protects clients and preserves their ultimate settlement amount. For more information, you can contact Charles at cwprice@capitalnowfunding.com.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Consumer

View All
Consumer

Let’s Get the Definition Right: Litigation Financing is Not Consumer Legal Funding

By Eric Schuller |

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

Across the country, in both state capitols and Washington, D.C., policymakers and courts are giving increasing attention to the question of “litigation financing” and whether disclosure requirements should apply. At the heart of this debate is a push for transparency, who is funding lawsuits, what contracts exist, and what parties are behind those agreements.

While the intent is understandable, the challenge lies in the lack of a consistent and precise definition of what “litigation financing” actually is. Too often, broad definitions sweep in products and services that were never intended to fall under that category, most notably Consumer Legal Funding. This misclassification has the potential to cause confusion in the law and, more importantly, harm consumers who rely on these funds to stay afloat financially while pursuing justice through the legal system.

As Aristotle observed, “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” Without careful definitions, good policy becomes impossible.

The Distinction Between Litigation Financing and Consumer Legal Funding

The difference between litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding is both simple and significant.

Litigation financing, sometimes referred to as third-party litigation funding (TPLF), typically involves an outside party providing monies to attorneys or to plaintiffs’ firms to pay for the costs of bringing or defending lawsuits. These funds are used to pay legal fees, expert witnesses, discovery expenses, and other litigation-related costs. The funders, in turn, often seek a portion of the litigation’s proceeds if the case is successful. In short, this type of financing directly supports the litigation itself.

Consumer Legal Funding, on the other hand, serves an entirely different purpose. In these transactions, monies are provided directly to consumers, not attorneys, for personal use while their legal claim is pending. These funds are not used to pay legal fees or case expenses. Instead, consumers typically use them for necessities such as rent, mortgage payments, groceries, utilities, childcare, or car payments. Funding companies are not influencing the litigation but rather ensuring that individuals have the financial stability to see their case through to its conclusion without being forced into a premature settlement simply because they cannot afford to wait.

This is why treating Consumer Legal Funding as though it were litigation financing is both inaccurate and potentially harmful.

Legislative and Judicial Recognition of the Difference

Several states have already recognized and codified this critical distinction. States including Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, and Kansas have examined disclosure requirements for litigation financing and have made it clear that Consumer Legal Funding is not subject to those laws. Their statutes expressly define litigation financing in a way that excludes consumer-focused products.

Courts have also weighed in. In Arizona, for example, the state’s rules of civil procedure expressly carve out Consumer Legal Funding, recognizing that these transactions are unrelated to litigation financing and should not be treated as such. Likewise, when the Texas Supreme Court considered proposed rules surrounding litigation financing, the Court ultimately declined to proceed. While no new rule was adopted, the process made clear that Consumer Legal Funding was not intended to be part of the conversation.

These examples demonstrate that policymakers and jurists, when carefully considering the issue, have consistently drawn a line between products that finance lawsuits and those that help consumers meet basic living expenses.

Why the Distinction Matters

The consequences of failing to make this distinction are not abstract, they are very real for consumers. If disclosure statutes or procedural rules are written too broadly, they risk sweeping in Consumer Legal Funding.

Disclosure requirements are aimed at uncovering potential conflicts of interest, undue influence over litigation strategy, or foreign investment in lawsuits. None of these concerns are relevant to Consumer Legal Funding, which provides personal financial support and, by statute in many states, explicitly forbids funders from controlling litigation decisions.

As Albert Einstein noted, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” When the difference between litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding is explained simply, the distinction becomes obvious. One finances lawsuits, the other helps consumers survive.

A Clear Request to Policymakers

For these reasons, we respectfully urge legislators and courts, when drafting legislation or procedural rules regarding “litigation financing,” to clearly define the scope of what is being regulated. If the issue is the funding of litigation, then the measures should address the financing of litigation itself, not the consumer who is simply trying to pay everyday bills and keep a roof over their head while awaiting the resolution of a legal claim.

Clarity in definitions is not a minor issue; it is essential to ensure that the right problems are addressed with the right solutions. Broad, vague definitions risk collateral damage, undermining access to justice and harming the very individuals the legal system is meant to protect. By contrast, carefully tailored definitions ensure transparency in litigation financing while preserving critical financial tools for consumers.

Finally

The debate around litigation financing disclosure is an important one, but it must be approached with precision. Litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding are two fundamentally different products that serve very different purposes. One finances lawsuits, the other helps individuals survive while waiting for justice.

It is important to begin with a clear definition. As Mark Twain wisely noted, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter, ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” If legislators and courts wish to regulate litigation financing, they must do so with precision, ensuring clarity in the law while also preserving the essential role that Consumer Legal Funding plays in supporting individuals and families during some of the most difficult periods of their lives.

Consumer

Critics Argue Litigation Funding May Lift Malpractice Insurance Premiums

By John Freund |
Healthcare malpractice insurers are re-evaluating how third-party litigation funding could alter claim dynamics, with potential knock‑on effects for premiums paid by physicians, hospitals, and allied providers. An article in South Florida Hospital News and Healthcare Report points out that for providers already facing staffing pressures and inflation in medical costs, even modest premium shifts can ripple through budgets. Patients may also feel indirect effects if coverage affordability influences provider supply, practice patterns, or defensive medicine. While clearly antagonistic towards the industry, the piece outlines how prolonged discovery, additional expert testimony, and higher damages demands can flow through to insurers’ loss ratios and reserving assumptions, which ultimately inform premium filings. It also notes that providers could see higher deductibles or retentions as carriers adjust terms, while some plaintiffs may gain greater access to counsel and case development resources. For litigation funders, med-mal remains a critical niche. Watch for state-level disclosure rules, court practices around admissibility of funding, and evolving ethical guidance—factors that will shape capital flows into healthcare disputes and the trajectory of malpractice premiums over the next few renewal cycles.
Consumer

Consumer Legal Funding: Support for People, Not Control Over Litigation

By Eric Schuller |

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

Summary: Consumer legal funding (CLF) is a non-recourse financial product that helps people meet essential living expenses while their legal claims are pending. It does not finance lawsuits, dictate strategy, or control settlements. In fact, every state that has enacted CLF statutes has explicitly banned providers from influencing the litigation process.

1) What Consumer Legal Funding Is

CLF provides modest, non-recourse financial assistance, typically a few thousand dollars to individuals awaiting resolution of a claim. These funds are used for rent, food, childcare, or car payments, not for legal fees or trial costs. If the case is lost, the consumer owes nothing.

CLF is not an investment in lawsuits or law firms, it is an investment in the consumer. 

2) Why Control Is Banned

The attorney–client relationship is central to the justice system. CLF statutes protect it by prohibiting funders from interfering. Common provisions include:
- No control over litigation strategy or settlement.
- No right to select attorneys or direct discovery.
- No settlement vetoes. Only the client, guided by counsel, makes those decisions.
- No fee-sharing or referral payments.
- No practice of law. Funders cannot provide legal advice.

These bans are spelled out in statutes across the country. Violating them exposes providers to penalties, voided contracts, and regulatory action.

3) Non-Recourse Structure Removes Leverage

Control requires leverage, but CLF offers none. Because repayment is only due if the consumer recovers, providers cannot demand monthly payments or seize assets. They do not fund litigation costs, so they cannot threaten to cut off discovery or expert testimony. The consumer retains ownership of the claim and full authority over all decisions.

4) Ethical Safeguards Reinforce Statutes

Even without statutory language, attorney ethics rules bar outside influence:
- Lawyers must exercise independent judgment and loyalty to clients.
- Confidentiality rules prevent improper information-sharing.
- No fee-sharing with non-lawyers ensures funders cannot 'buy' influence.
- The decision to settle rests solely with the client, not third parties.

Together, these rules and statutes guarantee that litigation decisions remain with client and counsel.

5) Market Realities: Why Control Makes No Sense

CLF contracts are relatively small, especially compared to the cost of litigation. They are designed to cover groceries and rent, not discovery budgets or jury consultants. Trying to control a case would be both unlawful and economically irrational.

Because repayment is contingent, funders want efficient and fair resolutions, not drawn-out litigation. Their interests align with consumers and counsel: achieving just outcomes at reasonable speed.

6) Addressing Misconceptions

- Myth: Funders push for bigger settlements.
  Fact: They cannot veto settlements. Dragging out cases only increases risk and cost.

- Myth: Funders get privileged information.
  Fact: Attorneys control disclosures; privilege remains intact. Access to limited case status updates does not confer control.

- Myth: CLF pressure consumers to reject fair settlements.
  Fact: Statutes forbid interference. And because advances are non-recourse, consumers are not personally liable beyond case proceeds.

- Myth: CLF is an assignment of the claim.
  Fact: Consumers remain the sole parties in interest. Providers have only a contingent repayment right.

7) How Statutes Work in Practice

States that regulate CLF typically require:
1. Plain-language contracts advising consumers to consult counsel.
2. Cooling-off periods for rescission.
3. Bright-line bans on control over strategy or settlement.
4. No fee-sharing or referral payments.
5. Regulatory oversight through registration or examination.
6. Civil remedies for violations.

This model balances access to financial stability with ironclad protections for litigation independence.

8) The Consumer’s Perspective

CLF does not alter case strategy; it alters life circumstances. Without it, many injured individuals face eviction, repossession, or the inability to pay basic bills. That pressure can lead to ‘forced settlements.' By covering essentials, CLF allows clients to consider their lawyer’s advice based on legal merits, not immediate financial desperation.

9) Compliance in Contracts

Standard CLF contracts reflect the law:
- Providers have no authority over legal decisions.
- Attorneys owe duties solely to clients.
- Terms granting control are void and unenforceable.

National providers adopt these clauses uniformly, even in states without explicit statutes, creating a strong industry baseline.

10) Enforcement and Oversight

Regulators can discipline providers, void unlawful terms, or impose penalties. Attorneys risk ethics sanctions if they allow third-party interference. Consumers may also have remedies under statute. These enforcement tools make attempted control both illegal and unprofitable.

11) Policy Rationale

Legislatures designed CLF frameworks to achieve two goals:
1. Preserve litigation integrity by keeping decisions between client and counsel.
2. Expand access to justice by giving consumers breathing room while claims proceed.

The explicit statutory bans on control ensure both goals are met.

Conclusion

Consumer legal funding is a support tool for people, not a lever over lawsuits. Statutes across the country make this crystal clear: CLF providers cannot influence litigation strategy, cannot veto settlements, and cannot practice law. The product is non-recourse, small in scale, and tightly regulated.

For consumers, CLF offers stability during difficult times. For the justice system, it preserves the attorney–client relationship and the independence of litigation. The result is access to justice without interference—because control of litigation is not only absent, but also expressly banned by law.