Trending Now
  • The Case for Nonlawyer-Owned Firms: Filling Consumer Justice Gaps Left by Big Law
  • Kansas Enacts Consumer Legal Funding Law, Offering a Bipartisan Regulatory Blueprint
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

Nonprofit Milestone Foundation Forms Advisory Council to Champion ‘Simple Interest’ Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

The Milestone Foundation, a western New York nonprofit that bills itself as the country's only organization dedicated to litigation funding for plaintiffs, has assembled a new advisory council to advance its mission and promote a funding model built on simple, non-compounding interest rates. The move marks an effort to position nonprofit funding as an alternative to the high-cost consumer products that have drawn regulatory scrutiny.

As reported by Law.com, the Buffalo-based foundation unveiled a multi-disciplinary council spanning the full litigation ecosystem, drawing together professionals from across the plaintiff, finance, and legal services landscape to guide its work and broaden its reach.

Founded in 2016 by John and Amy Bair, the Milestone Foundation operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and offers pre-settlement funding at 15% simple interest and post-settlement funding at 10% simple interest, with interest that never compounds. Like commercial consumer legal funding, its advances are non-recourse, meaning plaintiffs owe nothing if their case is unsuccessful. The foundation says it has provided more than $6 million in funding to over 900 plaintiffs in partnership with more than 320 law firms nationwide.

The council's formation comes amid intensifying debate over how consumer legal funding should be priced and regulated, exemplified by recent state legislation such as the Kansas Transparency in Consumer Legal Funding Act. By emphasizing transparent, simple-interest terms, the foundation is staking out a distinct position in a market often criticized for opaque and compounding charges, offering a model that supporters argue better aligns funding costs with plaintiffs' interests.

Consumer

Illinois Moves to Restrict Private Equity and Hedge Fund Control of Law Firms

By John Freund |

Illinois has joined a growing list of states moving to rein in non-lawyer ownership and control of law firms, advancing legislation that restricts the influence of private equity, hedge funds, and outside investors over legal practice. The measure reflects mounting concern that capital-driven ownership structures, closely related to litigation finance, could compromise attorney independence.

As reported by Crain's Chicago Business, House Bill 5487 places new limits on alternative business structures (ABS) and management services organizations (MSOs). The bill prohibits non-lawyers and outside investors from interfering with attorneys' professional judgment, accessing client records, hiring or firing lawyers, or charging fees tied to a firm's revenues or profits. Firms must also disclose any MSO or ABS arrangement to their clients.

Rather than banning the structures outright, the legislation significantly curtails non-lawyer involvement in firm operations and decision-making. The bill drew an unusual coalition, with both the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association and Illinois Defense Counsel backing it, alongside State Rep. Jay Hoffman and House Speaker Emanuel "Chris" Welch.

Supporters framed the measure as a response to rising private equity and venture capital involvement in civil litigation, drawing explicit parallels to third-party litigation funding arrangements that finance cases in exchange for a share of recoveries. Illinois follows California and Colorado in tightening ABS rules, amid criticism that Arizona's permissive regime has allowed non-lawyer-owned firms to manage mass tort caseloads while funded through attorney-fee percentages. The trend signals growing legislative resistance to investor control of the litigation process.

Consumer

The Case for Nonlawyer-Owned Firms: Filling Consumer Justice Gaps Left by Big Law

By John Freund |

As states such as Illinois move to restrict non-lawyer ownership of law firms, defenders of alternative business structures are pushing back, arguing that ABS models expand access to justice for consumers and small businesses that traditional firms have little economic incentive to serve. The debate goes to the heart of how technology and outside capital should reshape the delivery of legal services.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, Matt Freund, co-founder and chief executive of Arizona ABS-licensed firm ClaimsHero, contends that conventional firms lack the incentive to handle consumer protection and wage-theft claims where clients cannot afford hourly billing. ABS firms, he argues, combine legal expertise with technology to operate on contingency at scale, serving more than 100,000 clients at no cost to consumers through automated onboarding, eligibility screening, and client communication.

Freund counters concerns that non-lawyer ownership weakens oversight, asserting that ABS firms face stricter regulation than traditional practices. Entity-level licensing, he notes, creates firm-wide accountability, with semi-annual audits, biennial renewals, compliance-attorney requirements, and the risk of firm-wide suspension for ethics violations. He cites a 2025 Stanford Law School study finding that 85% of Arizona ABS firms target individual consumers and that there was "de minimis evidence of consumer harm."

To address skeptics, Freund recommends entity-level regulation, feedback mechanisms, ownership transparency, and governance safeguards for attorney independence as a template for other states. The argument offers a direct counterpoint to the restrictive measures gaining traction in statehouses across the country.