Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is Not Third-Party Litigation Financing, ARC Argues
Consumer Special Features

Inflation, Recession, and Consumer Legal Funding

April 21, 2022

Inflation, Recession, and Consumer Legal Funding

More Americans than ever are living paycheck to paycheck. With inflation rising and a recession right around the corner—financial pressures on the average family are increasing. And lawsuits aren’t going anywhere, which is why Consumer Legal Funding is a vital and necessary option for average families seeking justice in a legal setting. Yet regulation threatens the availability and effectiveness of Consumer Legal Funding—with the potential to curtail justice for those of modest financial means. What Exactly is Consumer Legal Funding? Consumer Legal Funding is one of two common types of third-party legal funding. While Commercial Litigation Finance focuses on big-ticket commercial claims like insolvencies, IP, antitrust cases, etc.—Consumer Legal Funding exists to advance smaller cases impacting average individuals. Consumer Legal Funding cases may include personal injury, medical malpractice, contesting invoices, and other torts (cases where plaintiffs are trying to right a wrong done to them—often by a larger entity). Like Commercial Legal Funding, Consumer Legal Funding is offered on a non-recourse basis. This means:
  • Collateral is not required to secure funding
  • Money deployed is not paid back unless the case is successful
  • Funders are taking on most or all of the financial risk
Once deployed, funds from Consumer Legal Funding, also called Pre-Settlement Advances, can be used to cover non-legal expenses like rent or mortgage payments, medical bills, or groceries. This is of particular value to individuals who have been injured and are unable to work. At its core, third-party litigation funding is focused on increasing access to justice. In order to accomplish this goal, funders must make a profit for their investors. With that in mind, the higher potential for large awards makes Commercial Legal Funding more attractive to funders. This leaves Consumer Legal Funding struggling for mainstream acceptance and a wider client base. How likely is it that Consumer Legal Funding will grow and flourish due to financial stressors like COVID, an impending recession, and rampant inflation? The answer may depend on what happens regarding proposed increases in regulation across many jurisdictions. Do Americans Really Need Consumer Legal Funding? When we look at the statistics, it’s clear that there’s a need for third-party funding entities that focus on individuals and families. Some measures show economic recovery post-COVID. Unemployment numbers are falling, while the GDP is rising. At the same time, inflation has reached a staggering 8.5%, leaving nearly a third of adults in the US using credit cards and even loans to make ends meet between paychecks. In several states, more than half of adults have difficulty meeting monthly expenses due to loss of income. These include:
  • New York
  • Florida
  • Mississippi (with a staggering 70+%)
  • Nevada
  • Arkansas
  • Oklahoma
  • New Mexico
  • Louisiana
  • Alabama
  • New Jersey
  • Hawaii
  • West Virginia
  • California
  • Texas
  • South Carolina
Families are increasingly facing food insecurity and falling behind on rent or mortgage payments—which in turn can lead to homelessness. Additionally, about 2/3 of Americans do not have enough money set aside to cover an unexpected expense of $500. A necessary car repair, emergency room visit, or home appliance failure can set a family or individual back months. These circumstances can take a toll on health as well—with more than 80% of those with financial stress experiencing clinical anxiety. Over half of those dealing with chronic financial worry suffer from depression. When an emergency arises through no fault of a plaintiff, seeking legal recourse may be the only way to avoid destitution. The statistics on personal injuries in the US are sobering to say the least.
  • 31 million Americans are injured and require medical treatment annually.
  • Of those, 2 million require a hospital stay.
  • Truck accidents alone account for 5,000 deaths and 60,000 injuries annually.
  • Medical malpractice is involved in nearly 100,000 deaths a year.
But as legal costs rise and the timing of court cases remains unpredictable—not everyone has access to the legal remedies they seek. That’s why Consumer Legal Funding is so important. It’s also why the industry shouldn’t be watered down by unnecessary regulations. Who is Pushing for Increased Regulation of Consumer Legal Funding? As one might expect, the insurance industry has been the most vocal about regulating Consumer and Commercial types of Litigation Finance. There’s a particular focus on Consumer Legal Finance—perhaps in part because a wronged or injured individual may appear more sympathetic to juries or judges. In practice, Consumer Legal Funding leads to more meritorious cases being filed, with more and larger awards that insurers must then pay. While insurers can then offset these payouts by charging higher premiums, this can still impact the insurer’s bottom line as policyholders balk at rate increases. What States are Already Passing Increased CLF Regulations? Interestingly, the states listed above as those where citizens are financially struggling the most have significant overlap with those states that have already passed regulations controlling Consumer Legal Funding. These include:
  • Tennessee
  • Arkansas
  • Nevada
  • West Virginia
We see that in many cases, states with residents hit hardest by financial woes are also those imposing restrictions on the use of CLF. West Virginia and Arkansas, for example, have 18% and 17% rate caps, respectively. West Virginia ranks 6th nationally in terms of states with the highest poverty rate, just behind Arkansas at number 5. As this dichotomy obviously harms average Americans, we have to wonder—who exactly are such regulations designed to help? When posed with a question like this, we like to “follow the money.” Who is lobbying for such onerous regulations? The most prominent and powerful organization behind the push for CLF regulation is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has been issuing a full court press against the Consumer Legal Funding industry (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the Commercial Litigation Finance industry) for years now, at both the state and federal level. And the reason the U.S. Chamber is so adamantly opposed to litigation funding? Two words: Big Insurance. Insurance companies are some of the lead backers of the Chamber of Commerce, and Big Insurance pays a hefty price when individuals have the means to bring cases to completion, and see larger payouts as a result. Insurance companies are incentivized to encourage swift endings to legal claims, where plaintiffs accept lowball offers in return for dropping their case. That is much less likely to happen if the plaintiff has access to Consumer Legal Funding. Remember, this funding is non-recourse, and can be spent on anything the plaintiff desires—rent, food, gas money, Christmas presents, etc. Less impecunious plaintiffs are less likely to settle for lowball offers, and that puts Big Insurance in a great big bind. With some wins under its belt in the aforementioned states, the Chamber is likely to continue its push for industry regulation for the foreseeable future. This has prompted the industry to come to the table on what it deems ‘common sense regulation.’ The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) – one of two industry trade groups – supports regulations that make CLF safer and easier for consumers to understand. Rather than focusing on fee caps or disclosure minutia, ARC is focused on industry best practices and on clearly spelling out the rights and obligations of those who use Consumer Legal Funding. This includes:
  • Disallowing referral fees, commission, or other adjacent payments such as experts or industry professionals giving testimony.
  • Prohibiting funders advertising in ways determined to be misleading or outright false.
  • Outlining Right of Recission provisions.
  • Ensuring that all fees and costs be reflected in written contracts, including recovery ownership of clients and funders.
  • Precluding third-party funders from decision making with regard to settlements or case strategy.
  • Requiring that funds be used for household needs rather than legal spending.
  • Including funders among those covered by attorney-client confidentiality.
  • Disallowing lawyers from seeking or having a financial interest in funding provided to clients by third-parties.
  • Necessitating attorneys be informed of funding contracts, and for lawyers to affirm that they were informed.
Several states have adopted ARC-approved legislation that increases protections for those who use Consumer Legal Funding.
  • Ohio
  • Nebraska
  • Main
  • Vermont
  • Oklahoma
These common-sense provisions are designed to improve transparency and enable clients to make informed decisions about whether or not to accept third-party funding as their case progresses. As Eric Schuller, President of ARC, noted: “Having a clear statute in place lets everyone know what they can and cannot do, and thereby removes any ambiguities that are associated with the product and industry.” Schuller also added, “To our knowledge, in the states that have passed reasonable regulations on the industry, there has not been a single complaint or issue since the statute has been in place.” Looking Ahead An academic study of CLF funder LawCash delivered some vital findings. First, the study found that the funder declined to fund roughly half the cases it was approached with. Defaults on awards or settlements cost the funder about 12% of its due revenue. Even profitable cases fell short of expectations—stemming from both client defaults and alternate arrangements made with clients. The study did not confirm or disprove an overall societal benefit to third-party legal funding. It did demonstrate that increased transparency and simplifying funding contracts carry benefits to consumers, as does regulation requiring lawyers to be more proactive in protecting clients. Ultimately, Consumer Legal Funding is a necessary, even essential part of leveling the playing field of our legal system. Regulation is increasingly becoming a tool leveraged by insurers to limit the amount of recourse available to those who have been injured, cheated, or otherwise wronged by larger entities. Let’s hope that more moderate minds prevail, and that CLF continues to ramp up consumer protections, while advancing access to justice.

Consumer

View All
Consumer

Consumer Legal Funding Is Not Third-Party Litigation Financing, ARC Argues

A new commentary pushes back on the tendency to lump consumer legal funding together with commercial third-party litigation financing, arguing the two are fundamentally different products that warrant different policy treatment.

Writing in The National Law Review, Eric K. Schuller, president of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC), contends that consumer legal funding (CLF) is a modest, non-recourse product that helps injured individuals cover household costs — rent, groceries, utilities, childcare — while their claims proceed, rather than an investment in the litigation itself. Typical transactions run $3,000 to $5,000, carry no repayment obligation if the case fails, and give the funder no control over legal strategy.

Commercial litigation finance, by contrast, involves institutional investors deploying millions into business disputes. On that basis, Schuller argues CLF cannot be blamed for a so-called "tort tax," since it neither causes accidents nor finances litigation expenses. "If Consumer Legal Funding disappeared tomorrow, accidents would still happen," he writes.

He points to state high-court decisions — Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners in Minnesota and Ruth v. Cherokee Funding in Georgia — and to states including Kansas, New York, California, and Georgia that regulate CLF separately, alongside a U.S. Government Accountability Office report describing commercial funding as institutional and corporate in nature. ARC says it supports responsible CLF regulation — licensing, plain-language contracts, cancellation rights, and prohibitions on controlling litigation — while opposing measures that treat CLF as commercial litigation finance.

Consumer

Independence Day Op-Ed Frames Consumer Legal Funding as the Freedom to Pursue Justice

In an Independence Day editorial, the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) argues that meaningful freedom includes the ability of injured Americans to pursue their legal claims without financial desperation forcing them into unfair settlements. The piece positions consumer legal funding as a practical tool for keeping the outcome of a case tied to its facts rather than to a plaintiff's bank balance.

Writing in the National Law Review, ARC president Eric Schuller contends that "justice delayed can quickly become justice denied when mounting bills force individuals into decisions they otherwise would never make." Defendants, he argues, understand this dynamic and can use the length of the civil justice process to pressure vulnerable plaintiffs into accepting less than their claims are worth.

Schuller distinguishes consumer legal funding from commercial litigation finance and traditional lending. These are typically small, non-recourse advances — often $3,000 to $5,000 — used for everyday necessities such as rent, groceries, and medical bills while a claim proceeds. Because the funding is non-recourse, a consumer who loses the underlying case owes nothing. ARC's guiding principle, he writes, is "Funding Lives, Not Litigation."

The editorial also makes the case for responsible oversight, endorsing disclosure requirements, attorney acknowledgment, and prohibitions on funders influencing litigation strategy — safeguards intended to protect consumers while preserving their access to the tool.

Consumer

In Jackson Hospital Bankruptcy, Funders and Lawyers Sit Ahead of the Hospital in Settlement Waterfall

A court filing in the bankruptcy of Montgomery-based Jackson Hospital reveals that, under a joint prosecution and funding agreement, litigation funders and lawyers would be paid ahead of the hospital itself if its lawsuit against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama produces a settlement. The arrangement offers an unusually clear public window into how a funded litigation recovery can be distributed.

As reported by Alabama Daily News, Jackson Hospital filed for bankruptcy and sued Blue Cross, arguing that only higher insurance reimbursement rates can keep the facility open. Its current operations are financed through a debtor-in-possession loan from Jackson Investment Group (JIG).

According to the agreement, any settlement proceeds would follow a strict waterfall: first, JIG's legal expenses; second, repayment of JIG's investment, including accrued and unpaid interest; and only then a split of what remains, with 70% directed to Jackson Hospital Corporation for its obligations to JIG and 30% to a nonprofit of JIG's choosing. The hospital itself effectively ranks third in the payment hierarchy.

The structure highlights a recurring tension in litigation finance: a courtroom victory does not always translate into the outcome a funded party most needs — here, the survival of the hospital. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Hawkins has scheduled a status hearing for June 30, leaving the ultimate distribution, and the hospital's future, unresolved.