Trending Now
  • Sigma Funding Secures $35,000,000 Credit Facility, Bryant Park Capital Serves as Financial Advisor
Consumer Special Features

The Case for Customized Solutions: One Size Does Not Fit All

May 2, 2019

The Case for Customized Solutions: One Size Does Not Fit All

The following article was contributed by Michael Lohrer, Chief Technology Officer of Segue Cloud Services. When it comes to technology for the legal finance community, more often than not market solutions have been designed as pre-set software, produced to function in one particular fashion to address organizational processes or workflows. End-users are often encouraged to give feedback on desired changes and customization, but revisions to the finished product are difficult for developers to fulfill after-the-fact. A pre-determined GUI and set functionality doesn’t always accommodate the ongoing needs of the customer—particularly for those who hope to grow their practices. The marketplace has come to accept the “one-size-fits-all” culture when it comes to business software where scale hinders the economics of customization. This is especially true in sophisticated market niches such as pre-settlement funding, which involves a complicated roster of labor intensive tasks, from contract generation to automated notification of multiple parties, to long-term tracking of the status of each case. Variables in these disciplines are constantly in flux, and each case has its own distinct conditions. Customers, however, are beginning to recognize that the one-size-fits-all mentality is not aligned with their needs, and are interested in finding technology vendors that have the latitude to customize their existing solution so it can be applied to specific business environments or workflows. This approach gives the customer confidence they are choosing a solution that addresses existing business needs. And if these requirements ever change—as they often do—the customer will have an even greater comfort level that the developer can make whatever changes are necessary to keep the technology relevant. Business owners should speak candidly with their technology vendors to determine if their software is designed to accommodate feature and workflow changes. Recognize that business dynamics continuously shift, and there will always be nuances and variables to every case, every new client, and every new stage of your business model as it evolves. The software you employ to help manage your processes and execute your tasks should be able to accommodate those changes, even if they occur mid-stream. For example, if your company takes on a new funding source, or if circumstances arise requiring a change in notifications or workflows, the user should be able to adapt their tools to address these new requirements, and not be expected to change their business practices to serve the limitations of software. When contemplating what type of automation software to implement for your firm, keep in mind that not all solutions take the one-size-fits-all approach. Automation software has been introduced in the market which allows users to dictate everything from the look and feel of the interface, to the ability to modify and add fields or generate notifications as needed, according to user-based rules. Companies are short-changing themselves if they invest in a system that forces employees to bend to the confines of its design—whether that’s regarding look and feel, the protocols by which users access data, or the ability to arrange application fields as they see fit. Look at it this way: Microsoft Windows is the most ubiquitous operating system in the world, yet no two users have the same desktop configuration. Each user benefits from personalizing the interface to best fit his or her workstyle. This ties into the new market emphasis on “WX,” or the “worker experience,” in which the technology and applications in the workplace address the learning styles and preferences of the individual to promote increased productivity and better job performance. Technologies for legal financing companies should emphasize flexibility, not rigidity. Uniformity has held sway for far too long, giving companies limited choices in finding an adaptable solution—but that’s quickly changing. Rather than subjecting the user to restrictions, it’s time to opt for systems that cater instead to business requirements, empowering companies in the legal finance community to thrive and grow. About the Contributor Michael Lohrer is Chief Technology Officer at Segue Cloud Services, a developer of automation software for the legal funding industry. Segue provides cloud-based solutions that help legal financing companies automate and manage all pre-settlement functions, from intake to settlement.

Consumer

View All
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.

Consumer

New York Enacts Consumer Litigation Funding Act Impacting Litigation Finance

By John Freund |

New York has enacted a new Consumer Litigation Funding Act, establishing a formal regulatory framework for third party litigation funding transactions involving consumers. The law, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul in December, introduces new registration requirements, disclosure obligations, and pricing restrictions aimed at increasing transparency and limiting costs for funded claimants.

As reported in Be Insure, litigation funders must register with the state and comply with detailed consumer protection rules. Funding agreements are required to clearly disclose the amount advanced, all fees and charges, and the total amount that may be owed if the case is successful.

Consumers must initial each page of the agreement and are granted a ten day cooling off period during which they may cancel the transaction without penalty. The law also prohibits funders from directing litigation strategy or interfering with the professional judgment of attorneys, preserving claimant and counsel independence.

One of the most significant provisions is a cap on the total charges a funder may collect, which is limited to 25 percent of the gross recovery. Prepayment penalties are unenforceable, and attorneys representing funded plaintiffs are prohibited from holding a financial interest in a litigation funding company. For the first time, consumer litigation funding in New York is brought under the state’s General Business Law, replacing years of relatively limited oversight with a comprehensive statutory regime.

Supporters of the legislation argue that the law addresses concerns about excessive costs and abusive practices while providing clarity for an industry that has operated in a regulatory gray area. Industry critics, however, have raised questions about whether pricing caps could restrict access to funding for higher risk claims.