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.

Consumer

View All
Consumer

What Happens to Consumers When Consumer Legal Funding Disappears

By Eric Schuller |

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

The Real-World Consequences of Over-Regulation and Misclassification

State lawmakers across the country are increasingly focused on how to regulate third-party financial activity connected to litigation. That attention is appropriate and necessary. However, when Consumer Legal Funding (CLF) is misclassified as a loan, conflicted with commercial litigation finance, or subjected to regulatory structures designed for fundamentally different financial products, the consequences fall not on providers, but on consumers who need it the most.

Consumer Legal Funding, Funding Lives, Not Litigation, exists to help individuals with pending legal claims meet basic household needs while their cases move through the legal system. These consumers are often recovering from serious injuries, unable to work, and facing mounting financial pressure. When CLF disappears due to over-regulation or misclassification, those consumers do not suddenly become financially secure. Instead, they are pushed into worse, more dangerous alternatives, or forced into decisions that undermine both their legal rights and their long-term financial stability.

Who Uses Consumer Legal Funding and Why

Consumers who turn to CLF are not seeking to finance their litigation. They are seeking financial stability. On average, CLF transactions range between $3,000 and $5,000. These monies are used for rent, mortgage payments, utilities, groceries, childcare, transportation, and medical co-pay. In many cases, it is differences between maintaining housing or facing eviction, between keeping a car or losing the ability to get to medical appointments or work.

CLF is non-recourse. If the consumer does not recover in their legal claim, they owe nothing. That structure places all financial risk on the provider, not the consumer. It is precisely this risk allocation that distinguishes CLF from loans and traditional credit products, and it is why courts and legislatures in numerous states have recognized that CLF is not a loan.

When lawmakers impose loan-based frameworks on CLF, including usury caps, amortization requirements, or repayment obligations disconnected from case outcomes, the product becomes economically impossible to offer. The result is not a cheaper product. The result is no product at all.

The Immediate Impact of CLF Disappearing

When CLF exits a state market, the effects are immediate and measurable.

First, consumer access disappears. Providers cannot operate under regulatory structures that ignore the non-recourse nature of the product. Capital exits the market, and consumers lose an option that previously helped them remain financially afloat during litigation.

Second, consumers are forced into inferior alternatives. Without CLF, injured individuals frequently turn to credit cards, payday lenders, installment loans, or borrowing from friends and family. These options often carry guaranteed repayment obligations, compounding interest, collection risk, and damage to credit. Unlike CLF, these products do not adjust based on whether the consumer recovers anything in their legal claim.

Third, financial pressure forces premature settlements. When consumers cannot meet basic living expenses, they are more likely to accept early, undervalued settlements simply to survive. This undermines the fairness of the civil justice system and benefits defendants and insurers, not injured parties or the courts.

Misclassification Harms the Most Vulnerable Consumers

The consumers most harmed by the elimination of CLF are those with the fewest alternatives. These are individuals with limited savings, limited access to traditional credit, and limited ability to absorb income disruption following an injury.

Ironically, regulations intended to protect consumers often end up harming precisely the consumers they sought to help. When CLF is treated as a loan, the regulatory burden drives responsible providers out of the market while doing nothing to improve consumer outcomes. Consumers do not gain safer options. They lose transparent, regulated, non-recourse funding and are pushed toward products with higher risk and fewer protections.

This is not hypothetical. States that have enacted overly restrictive frameworks or applied inappropriate rate caps have seen providers exit, access shrink, and consumer choice vanish. The lesson is clear. When regulation ignores economic reality, consumers pay the price.

CLF Does Not Drive Litigation or Verdict Inflation

A common concern raised in policy debates is whether CLF encourages litigation, prolongs cases, or contributes to so-called nuclear verdicts. The evidence does not support these claims.

CLF is accessed after a legal claim already exists. It does not finance attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation strategy. Providers have no control over legal decisions, settlement timing, or trial outcomes. Their only interest is whether a consumer recovers at all.

Moreover, the small size of typical CLF transactions makes it implausible that they influence case strategy or verdict size. A $3,000 to $5,000 transaction used to pay rent or utilities does not drive multi-million-dollar litigation outcomes. Conflating CLF with commercial litigation finance obscures these realities and leads to policy mistakes.

A Better Path Forward for Policymakers

Legislators can protect consumers without eliminating CLF. States that have enacted thoughtful CLF statutes have focused on disclosure, transparency, contract clarity, and consumer choice, rather than imposing loan-based rate structures that do not fit a non-recourse product.

Effective regulation acknowledges three core principles. First, CLF is not a loan and should not be regulated as one. Second, consumers benefit from access to a regulated, transparent product rather than being pushed into worse alternatives. Third, clear rules provide stability for both consumers and providers.

When policymakers get this balance right, consumers retain access to a product that helps them weather one of the most difficult periods of their lives without distorting the justice system or creating unintended harm.

Conclusion

The issue confronting lawmakers is not whether Consumer Legal Funding should be subject to oversight, but whether existing and future frameworks accurately reflect how the product operates and whom it serves. When CLF is swept into regulatory regimes designed for loans or commercial litigation finance, the result is not improved consumer protection. It is the quiet elimination of a non-recourse option that many injured consumers rely on to remain financially stable while their legal claims are resolved.

Careful, informed policymaking requires recognizing that Consumer Legal Funding is distinct, limited in size, non-recourse, and consumer-facing. Regulation that acknowledges those characteristics preserves transparency and accountability without stripping consumers of choice or forcing them into riskier financial alternatives. When rules are tailored to economic reality rather than broad assumptions, consumers are better protected, markets remain stable, and the civil justice system functions as intended.

Consumer

Consumer Legal Funding Is Not a Loan, Courts and Economists Agree

By John Freund |

The debate over whether consumer legal funding should be classified as a loan continues to surface in regulatory and policy circles, but legal doctrine and economic analysis consistently point in the opposite direction. Consumer legal funding is a non-recourse financial transaction tied to the outcome of a legal claim. If the consumer does not recover in their case, they owe nothing. This defining feature alone places the product outside the traditional boundaries of consumer lending, which requires repayment regardless of outcome and typically involves credit underwriting, collateral, and enforceable debt obligations.

An article in the National Law Review explains that courts and legislatures across the United States have repeatedly recognized this distinction. Rather than viewing consumer legal funding as borrowed money, courts have treated these arrangements as the purchase of a contingent interest in a future settlement or judgment. Because repayment is entirely dependent on case success, judges have found that the economic substance of the transaction does not resemble a loan, nor does it fit neatly within existing consumer credit frameworks.

Judicial decisions from multiple jurisdictions underscore this point. Courts have emphasized that consumers face no personal liability, no collection efforts, and no obligation to repay from their own assets. These factors are incompatible with the legal definition of a loan, which presumes a fixed obligation to repay principal and interest. As a result, attempts to recharacterize consumer legal funding as lending have largely failed when scrutinized under established legal standards.

From an economic perspective, consumer legal funding plays a distinct role in the civil justice system. It provides liquidity to plaintiffs who may be facing prolonged litigation and financial pressure, often helping them avoid accepting premature or undervalued settlements. Treating these transactions as loans could impose regulatory requirements that are poorly suited to non-recourse funding and risk limiting consumer access to a product designed to mitigate imbalance between individual plaintiffs and well-resourced defendants.

Consumer

Legal-Bay Hails New York Litigation Funding Act as Industry Milestone

By John Freund |

Legal Bay has praised New York Governor Kathy Hochul for signing the New York Litigation Funding Act into law, describing the legislation as a landmark step that finally provides a clear regulatory framework for consumer litigation funding in the state. The new law represents a significant development for an industry that has operated for years amid legal uncertainty in one of the country’s most active litigation markets.

A Legal Bay press release notes that the legislation establishes a comprehensive set of consumer protections and regulatory standards governing litigation funding transactions in New York. Legal Bay characterized the law as the product of more than two decades of policy development and sustained advocacy efforts by industry participants and consumer access to justice groups. The company emphasized that the statute provides long needed clarity by formally recognizing consumer litigation funding as a non recourse financial transaction rather than a traditional loan.

Under the new framework, funded plaintiffs are only required to repay advances if they obtain a recovery in their legal claims. Supporters of the law argue that this distinction is critical in protecting consumers from additional financial risk while ensuring that individuals with meritorious claims are able to cover basic living expenses during the often lengthy litigation process. Legal Bay highlighted that litigation funding can help plaintiffs avoid accepting early settlements driven by financial pressure rather than the merits of their cases.

Legal Bay also acknowledged the role played by New York lawmakers in advancing the legislation through the state legislature, noting that the law strikes a balance between consumer protection and preserving access to funding. According to the company, the statute promotes transparency, fairness, and stability in a market that continues to grow in both size and sophistication.