News and analysis dedicated to the consumer legal funding sector including mass torts, regulatory issues, case developments, funding activities, and more.

Consumer legal funding has increasingly become a focal point for legislative scrutiny, with some policymakers framing new regulations as necessary consumer protections. A recent commentary argues that one such proposal—imposing joint and several liability on consumer legal funding companies—may do more harm than good, ultimately restricting access to justice for the very consumers these laws are meant to protect.

At its core, the debate centers on whether funders should be held jointly and severally liable alongside plaintiffs for litigation outcomes or related conduct. Proponents of these measures suggest that attaching liability to funders would deter abusive practices and align incentives across the litigation ecosystem. Critics, however, warn that this approach misunderstands the role of consumer legal funding and risks destabilizing a market that many injured or financially vulnerable plaintiffs rely upon to pursue meritorious claims.

An article in National Law Review states that joint and several liability provisions would dramatically alter the risk profile for consumer legal funding companies, forcing them to assume exposure far beyond their contractual role as non-recourse financiers. The piece argues that such liability would likely lead to higher costs of capital, reduced availability of funding, or a wholesale exit of providers from certain jurisdictions. In turn, consumers who lack the means to sustain themselves financially during prolonged litigation could be left without viable alternatives, effectively pressuring them into premature or undervalued settlements.

The article also challenges the notion that consumer legal funding requires punitive regulation, pointing to existing disclosure requirements, contract oversight, and state-level consumer protection laws that already govern the industry. By layering on joint liability, legislators may unintentionally undermine these frameworks and introduce uncertainty that benefits defendants more than consumers. The author further notes that similar liability concepts are generally absent from other forms of non-recourse financing, raising questions about why legal funding is being singled out.

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.

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) applauds New York Governor Kathy Hochul for signing into law Assembly Bill 804C/Senate Bill 1104, a landmark measure establishing thoughtful regulation for Consumer Legal Funding in the Empire State.

Sponsored by Assemblymember William B. Magnarelli and Senator Jeremy Cooney, this legislation creates a clear framework that protects consumers while preserving access to a vital financial resource that helps individuals cover essential living expenses—such as rent, mortgage, and utilities, while their legal claims are pending.

“I am pleased that the Governor signed this important bill into law today.  It is the culmination of 8-years of hard work on this issue.  This law will provide a sound framework to regulate financing agreements and provide protections to consumers.  I want to thank the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding and its President, Eric K. Schuller for working with me to get this bill over the finish line.  I would also like to thank and acknowledge my late colleague, Assemblyman Michael Simanowitz, who was the original sponsor of this legislation.”  — William B. Magnarelli, 129^th Assembly District 

For many New Yorkers, Consumer Legal Funding provides a critical financial lifeline while a legal claim is pending, often for months or years. Injured consumers frequently face lost income and mounting household expenses at the very moment they are least able to manage financial strain. Consumer Legal Funding allows individuals to cover essential living costs, such as rent, utilities, transportation, and groceries, without being forced into an early or unfair settlement simply to make ends meet.

Senator Jeremy Cooney stated: “Today marks a historic step forward in protecting everyday New Yorkers from opaque and often predatory litigation financing practices. For too long, vulnerable plaintiffs have been left in the dark about the true cost of third-party funding, only to see the majority of their hard-earned legal recovery eroded by fees and unclear terms. I’m proud to sponsor this bill that brings transparency, accountability, and basic consumer protections to this industry, ensuring New Yorkers can pursue justice without sacrificing financial security.”

Because Consumer Legal Funding is non-recourse, consumers repay funds only if they recover proceeds from their legal claim, if there is no recovery, they owe nothing. This structure protects consumers from taking on debt, preserves their financial stability, and ensures they retain full control over their legal decisions. By enacting this legislation, New York affirms that Consumer Legal Funding supports financial stability and access to justice.

“This law strikes the right balance between consumer protection and financial empowerment, by establishing clear rules of the road, New York ensures that consumers retain freedom of choice, transparency, and access to funds that help them meet their immediate needs during one of the most difficult times in their lives.” said Eric K. Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). “We thank Governor Hochul for her leadership and Assemblymember Magnarelli and Senator Cooney for their commitment to fairness and consumer choice. This new law affirms that Consumer Legal Funding is about funding lives, not litigation.” 

Under the new law, Consumer Legal Funding is defined as a non-recourse transaction in which a company purchases a contingent right to receive proceeds from a consumer’s legal claim. The law contains several key consumer safeguards, including:

• Clear Contract Disclosures: All terms, charges, and cumulative repayment amounts must be plainly stated and initialed by the consumer.
• Right to Cancel: Consumers have ten business days to cancel a contract without penalty.
• Attorney Oversight: Attorneys must acknowledge reviewing mandatory disclosures and are prohibited from accepting referral fees or having a financial interest in funding companies.
• Prohibited Practices: Funding companies may not influence settlement decisions, mislead consumers through advertising, or refer clients to specific attorneys or medical providers.
• Registration and Reporting: All funding companies must register with the State of New York and file annual reports, and meet bonding and disclosure requirements.

The act takes effect 180 days after becoming law and marks another milestone in advancing consumer protection and responsible business practices across the nation.

About ARC

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) is the national trade association representing companies that provide Consumer Legal Funding—non-recourse financial assistance that helps consumers meet everyday living expenses while their legal claims proceed. ARC advocates for policies that protect consumers and ensure access to fair, transparent, and responsible funding options.

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

In today’s economy, far too many Americans are walking a financial tightrope. New data from the Bank of America Institute shows that 24 percent of U.S. households now spend more than 95 percent of their income on basic necessities such as rent, groceries, utilities and transportation. That number jumps to 29 percent among lower income households.

Even more surprising, this strain is not limited to those on the lower end of the income ladder. A recent report from Fortune found that 41 percent of workers earning between $300,000 and $500,000, and 40 percent of those earning more than $500,000, say they too are living paycheck to paycheck. Lifestyle costs, debt and high inflation have eroded financial resilience even at the upper end of the income scale.

When an unexpected injury occurs, these households do not simply experience inconvenience. They experience crisis. Income stops or drops. Medical bills rise. Transportation becomes a barrier. Childcare becomes more complicated. Daily life becomes harder and more expensive, just as a legal claim begins the long march through the justice system.

This is the reality facing millions of Americans. It is also why Consumer Legal Funding exists.

The Delay Between Injury and Justice Creates Hardship

After an accident, a consumer who has a valid legal claim. But that claim will take time to resolve. Insurance negotiations, medical assessments and legal reviews do not operate on the timeline of rent due on the first of the month. Consumers cannot tell the electric company to wait until their settlement arrives. They cannot tell the landlord that the case is moving slowly. Yet all of those bills continue to accumulate.

For people who already have no financial cushion, even a short interruption in income can be catastrophic. Families fall behind on rent. Utilities get disconnected. Cars fall into repossession. Groceries become unaffordable.

These pressures far too often push consumers into accepting low settlement offers simply to survive. That is not justice. That is coercion.

Consumer Legal Funding Helps Consumers Survive the Wait

Consumer Legal Funding provides consumers with access to a portion of the future proceeds of their legal claim. Those funds help pay for essential daily expenses, such as:

• Rent and utilities
• Groceries and basic household needs
• Car payments and repairs
• Childcare and family necessities
• Transportation to medical appointments

This support is not used to pay attorney fees or litigation expenses. It is used to keep food on the table and a roof over a family’s head. It is, quite literally, the difference between stability and crisis while consumers await a fair resolution.

Equally important, Consumer Legal Funding is non-recourse. If the consumer does not win or settle their case, they owe nothing. No debt is created. No financial penalty follows them. The risk is on the funding company, not the consumer.

In a financial landscape where payday loans, credit cards and title loans can trap people in cycles of debt, Consumer Legal Funding offers a safer alternative that respects their long term financial well being.

Leveling the Playing Field

Consumer Legal Funding gives consumers the ability to withstand delay tactics. It gives them the time they need for their attorney to negotiate properly. It allows the civil justice system to work on the merits of the case, not the desperation of the injured person.

In an economy where both low income and high-income earners are struggling to stay afloat, tools that protect fairness in the justice system have never been more important.

A Necessary Safety Net for a Fragile Economy

The numbers paint a clear picture. Whether someone earns $40,000 or $400,000, far too many Americans are living without a financial buffer. A single injury can create a domino effect that jeopardizes a family’s housing, transportation, health and financial future.

Consumer Legal Funding does not solve every challenge. But it solves one critical one: it keeps consumers stable during the long wait for justice. It prevents them from being forced into unfair settlements. And it protects them from predatory financial alternatives that create long term harm.

In short, it helps Americans in their moment of need.

Funding Lives, Not Litigation

Consumer Legal Funding exists for one purpose: to help people survive while their legal claim makes its way through the system. It allows injured consumers to focus on recovery, not crisis. It restores balance against powerful insurance companies. And it ensures fairness is not compromised because someone cannot afford to wait for what they are rightfully owed.

Consumer Legal Funding is about Funding Lives, Not Litigation. And in an economy where far too many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, that mission has never been more essential.

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

This year’s Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt for their groundbreaking work on how innovation fuels economic growth and human welfare. Their research, centered on endogenous growth and creative destruction, shows that societies advance when new ideas challenge old systems, replacing inefficiency with opportunity.

While their theories are often discussed in the context of technology or industrial progress, they also apply to financial and social innovations that empower people. One of the most quietly transformative examples is Consumer Legal Funding, a financial service that provides individuals with non-recourse funds while their legal claims are pending.

Viewed through the lens of these Nobel-winning theories, Consumer Legal Funding is far more than a niche product. It is an economic innovation that expands access, promotes fairness, and strengthens the very mechanisms that drive growth and human welfare.

1. Expanding Access to Justice: Empowering Consumers and Communities

Access to justice is both a moral and an economic imperative. When ordinary people cannot afford to pursue their legal rights because they cannot provide for their family, justice becomes a privilege for the wealthy, and the rule of law erodes. Consumer Legal Funding addresses this inequity directly by providing individuals with the funds they need to meet essential household expenses, rent, mortgage, groceries, utilities, childcare, while their cases make their way through the legal system.

Because these funds are non-recourse, consumers owe nothing if they do not win their case. That makes Consumer Legal Funding uniquely empowering: it provides stability and breathing room at the moment people need it most. In economic terms, this keeps families solvent, prevents forced settlements driven by financial desperation, and allows cases to be resolved based on fairness rather than necessity.

This democratization of access produces tangible economic benefits. Families stay in their homes, local businesses receive payments, and workers avoid the financial collapse that often accompanies serious injury or wrongful termination. In this way, Consumer Legal Funding strengthens both household balance sheets and community well-being, a microeconomic engine of stability and resilience.

2. Protecting Innovation and Small Business Resilience

The Nobel laureates emphasized that innovation flourishes when barriers to participation are lowered. The same principle applies to individuals and small businesses facing powerful opponents in legal disputes. Whether it is a local contractor owed payment, a delivery driver injured in an accident, or an inventor defending intellectual property, the ability to pursue justice can determine whether innovation thrives or collapses.

Consumer Legal Funding helps level this playing field. It gives consumers and small enterprises the financial capacity to sustain legitimate claims without surrendering early under financial pressure. By doing so, it safeguards the principles of accountability and fair dealing that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation.

Every successful resolution supported by Consumer Legal Funding reinforces market integrity: contracts are honored, negligence is deterred, and honest competition is rewarded. This is how progress occurs, when individuals and innovators have the means to defend their rights and contribute fully to economic life.

3. Fueling Creative Destruction: Redefining How Justice Is Financed

In economic terms, Consumer Legal Funding is itself an innovation that embodies creative destruction. For generations, access to justice was limited by the rigid structure of the legal system: lawyers and clients bore the full financial risk, and those without resources were often shut out entirely.

Consumer Legal Funding disrupts that outdated model. It introduces a private-market solution that operates independently of banks, insurers, or government assistance. By offering a new way for individuals to access funds tied to the potential outcome of their legal claim, it redefines the economics of fairness.

This shift mirrors other historic transformations, just as e-commerce reshaped retail or fintech expanded banking access, Consumer Legal Funding modernizes the intersection of law and finance. It replaces exclusivity with inclusion, dependency with empowerment, and uncertainty with choice. It is a vivid example of innovation that serves people first, not institutions.

4. Creating a New Financial Ecosystem: From Survival Tool to Economic Contributor

What began as a consumer support product has grown into a significant contributor to the broader economy. The Consumer Legal Funding industry now represents a direct economic driver, supporting thousands of jobs in finance, compliance, technology, and law.

“The Nobel laureates’ research ultimately centers on a profound idea: that human welfare grows when barriers to progress are removed and individuals are empowered to act. Consumer Legal Funding embodies that principle.”

Each transaction recirculates funds into the economy, paying landlords, medical providers, car repair shops, and countless other local businesses. In this way, Consumer Legal Funding acts as a stabilizer, smoothing the financial turbulence that can follow accidents, workplace injuries, or prolonged litigation.

Economists recognize that liquidity and timing matter. By bridging the gap between injury and recovery, between claim and resolution, Consumer Legal Funding enhances financial resilience and supports sustained consumer spending. This flow of capital at the household level contributes to macroeconomic stability and growth, precisely the kind of incremental innovation that Mokyr and Aghion identified as critical to human welfare.

5. Driving Institutional and Regulatory Innovation

Innovation does not occur in isolation; it prompts institutions to evolve. The rapid growth of Consumer Legal Funding has led policymakers, courts, and regulators to modernize legal and financial frameworks to reflect this new reality.

In states such as Utah, Georgia, Maine, Missouri, Ohio, Vermont and now California, legislatures have enacted laws that specifically recognize and regulate Consumer Legal Funding, ensuring transparency and consumer protection while preserving access. These frameworks establish clear rules, define the product as non-recourse, and distinguish it from loans or traditional litigation financing.

This legal clarity promotes responsible growth, protects consumers, and reinforces trust in the marketplace. It also represents exactly what Aghion and Howitt described: institutional adaptation as a driver of sustained innovation. As more jurisdictions follow suit, Consumer Legal Funding continues to model how private innovation and public policy can evolve together to serve the public good.

6. Consumer Legal Funding and the Economics of Human Welfare

The Nobel laureates’ research ultimately centers on a profound idea: that human welfare grows when barriers to progress are removed and individuals are empowered to act. Consumer Legal Funding embodies that principle.

By providing access to financial stability during legal uncertainty, it transforms moments of crisis into pathways toward justice and recovery. It strengthens families, reduces strain on public assistance systems, and promotes confidence in the fairness of the civil justice process.

At a macro level, the ripple effects are substantial. More equitable settlements mean greater accountability. Greater accountability deters harmful behavior. And when wrongdoing is reduced, the economy becomes more efficient and trustworthy — exactly the conditions required for sustained, inclusive growth.

7. A Call to Recognize Consumer Legal Funding as True Economic Innovation

Innovation is not defined solely by technology or machinery; it is measured by ideas that reshape systems and improve lives. Consumer Legal Funding achieves both. It is a financial innovation that serves social good, an economic tool that empowers individuals, and a policy model that encourages modern regulatory thinking.

The economists honored by this year’s Nobel Prize remind us that progress is built on the courage to rethink how systems work, and for whom they work. By that measure, Consumer Legal Funding deserves recognition not as a fringe practice, but as a quiet force of modern progress: Funding Lives, Not Litigation.

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding Applauds Governor Newsom for Signing AB 931, the California Consumer Legal Funding Act

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) expressed its deep appreciation to Governor Gavin Newsom for signing Assembly Bill 931 — The California Consumer Legal Funding Act — into law. Authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D–San Jose, 25th District), this landmark legislation establishes thoughtful and comprehensive regulation of Consumer Legal Funding in California—ensuring consumer protection, transparency, and access to financial stability while legal claims move through the judicial process.

The law, which takes effect January 1, 2026, provides consumers with much-needed financial support during the often lengthy resolution of their legal claims, helping them cover essential living expenses such as rent, mortgage payments, and utilities.

“This legislation represents a major step forward for California consumers,” said Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. “AB 931 strikes the right balance between protecting consumers and preserving access to a financial product that helps individuals stay afloat while they await justice. Consumer Legal Funding truly is about funding lives, not litigation.”
Key Consumer Protections Under AB 931

The California Consumer Legal Funding Act includes robust safeguards that prohibit funding companies from engaging in improper practices and mandate full transparency for consumers.

The Act Prohibits Consumer Legal Funding Companies from:

• Offering or colluding to provide funding as an inducement for a consumer to terminate their attorney and hire another.
• Colluding with or assisting an attorney in bringing fabricated or bad-faith claims.
• Paying or offering referral fees, commissions, or other forms of compensation to attorneys or law firms for consumer referrals.
• Accepting referral fees or other compensation from attorneys or law firms.
• Exercising any control or influence over the conduct or resolution of a legal claim.
• Referring consumers to specific attorneys or law firms (except via a bar association referral service).

The Act Requires Consumer Legal Funding Companies to:

• Provide clear, written contracts stating:
• The amount of funds provided to the consumer.
• A full itemization of any one-time charges.
• The maximum total amount remaining, including all fees and charges.
• A clear explanation of how and when charges accrue.
• A payment schedule showing all amounts due every 180 days, ensuring consumers understand their maximum financial obligation from the outset.
• Offer consumers a five-business-day right to cancel without penalty.
• Maintain no role in deciding whether, when, or for how much a legal claim is settled.

With AB 931, California joins a growing list of states that have enacted clear and fair regulation recognizing Consumer Legal Funding as a non-recourse, consumer-centered financial service—distinct from litigation financing and designed to help individuals meet their household needs while pursuing justice.

“We commend Assemblymember Kalra for his leadership and Governor Newsom for signing this important legislation,” said Schuller. “This act ensures that Californians who need temporary financial relief during their legal journey can do so safely, transparently, and responsibly.”

About the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC)

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) is a national association representing companies that provide Consumer Legal Funding, non-recourse financial assistance that helps consumers meet essential expenses while awaiting the resolution of a legal claim. ARC advocates for fair regulation, transparency, and consumer choice across the United States.

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.

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.

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

Over the past decade, insurance companies, tort reform advocates, and certain think tanks have increasingly pointed to “social inflation” as a driving force behind higher insurance premiums and larger jury awards. Let’s be clear “social inflation” is not a formally a defined economic concept; it’s an insurance industry narrative that describes some real legal and cultural trends The term itself is elastic, meant to describe cultural, legal, and economic shifts that allegedly lead to outsized liability costs. Critics have attempted to lump Consumer Legal Funding (CLF) into this category, claiming that it somehow fuels runaway verdicts and higher settlement values.

But such claims are deeply flawed. Consumer Legal Funding is fundamentally distinct from litigation financing or any mechanism that could impact the cost of litigation or influence the size of awards. CLF does not bankroll attorneys, experts, or trial strategies; rather, it provides modest, non-recourse financial assistance to injured individuals so they can pay rent, keep the lights on, and buy groceries while their legal claims move through an often slow and complex justice system.

Consumer Legal Funding has nothing to do with social inflation by exploring the mechanics of CLF, unpacking the definition of social inflation, analyzing the evidence, and dismantling the arguments insurers use to conflate the two.

Understanding Social Inflation

“Social inflation” is a term widely used in the insurance industry but often poorly defined. Broadly, it refers to increases in insurance claims costs beyond what can be explained by general economic inflation. Insurers believe it is due to several factors, including:

1. Expanding liability concepts – Courts and legislatures allowing broader recovery for damages.
2. Plaintiff-friendly juries – Larger awards due to shifting attitudes toward corporations and insurers.
3. Aggressive plaintiff bar strategies – Creative legal theories, demand of damages at high levels.
4. Erosion of tort reform – Judicial rulings striking down statutory caps or limits.

While these elements may influence claims costs, they have little to do with the day-to-day survival assistance provided through Consumer Legal Funding. CLF is not part of the litigation itself—it is part of the consumer’s household economy.

What Consumer Legal Funding Actually Is

Consumer Legal Funding is a simple, consumer-focused financial product:

• Non-recourse funds – The consumer receives a small amount of financial assistance (average $3,000–$5,000) against the potential proceeds of their legal claim. If they lose the case, they have no further obligation.
• Restricted use – The funds cannot be used to pay legal fees or litigation costs. They are meant for everyday living expenses such as rent, medical co-pays, utilities, and food.
• Separate from litigation – Attorneys remain fully in charge of legal strategy, and courts determine the value of the case without reference to whether a consumer has received CLF.
• Statutory protections – In states where CLF is regulated, statutes explicitly prohibit the funds from being used to finance litigation.

In essence, CLF is about financing life, not litigation it ensures that injured consumers are not put into a “forced settlement” simply because they cannot afford to wait for fair compensation.

The False Link Between CLF and Social Inflation

Opponents of CLF often argue that providing consumers with financial breathing room allows them to hold out for larger settlements, thereby inflating claims costs. This narrative is problematic for several reasons:

1. Settlements are driven by case value, not desperation.
   Settlement negotiations are based on liability facts, damages evidence, and the likelihood of success at trial. A consumer’s ability to pay rent has no bearing on whether a defendant is legally liable for an injury.
2. CLF levels the playing field, not tips it.
   Insurers routinely exploit financial desperation to force low-ball settlements. CLF prevents this imbalance but does not artificially inflate case value, it simply ensures consumers can wait for the fair value of their settlement and not a forced settlement. 
3. No evidence connects CLF to higher verdicts or insurance premiums.
   Despite repeated assertions, insurers have not produced empirical studies demonstrating that states with regulated CLF experience higher claim costs or premium growth compared to states without it.
4. Average funding amounts are too small to affect case economics.
   With fundings averaging just a few thousand dollars, it cannot influence the outcome of the litigation.

Social Inflation Drivers: CLF Isn’t One of Them

To further dismantle the narrative, it is important to examine what is thought to be the drivers of “social inflation” and show where CLF stands in relation.

1. Jury Attitudes and “Nuclear Verdicts”

Juries may award higher damages due to distrust of corporations or outrage over egregious conduct. These cultural and psychological factors are wholly unrelated to whether a consumer had help paying rent while waiting for trial.

2. Expanding Damages Categories

Courts and legislatures increasingly allow recovery for noneconomic damage or broaden definitions of liability. CLF has no influence over judicial doctrine or statutory reform.

3. Litigation Tactics 

CLF contracts explicitly bar funding companies from interfering in legal strategy.

By every measure, CLF is not a driver of social inflation but a consumer protection tool.

Evidence From Regulated States

Roughly a dozen states—including Ohio, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and Vermont—have enacted statutes regulating Consumer Legal Funding. These states continue to have competitive insurance markets, and there is no evidence of outsized premium growth attributable to CLF.

If CLF were truly a driver of so-called social inflation, one would expect observable differences in these states’ insurance markets compared to others. None exists.

Insurer Motivations for Blaming CLF

Why, then, do insurers persist in linking CLF to social inflation? Several strategic motivations are at play:

1. Deflection from internal cost drivers.
   Insurers face rising costs due to investment losses, catastrophic weather events, and corporate overhead. Blaming “social inflation” provides a convenient external scapegoat.
2. Preservation of settlement leverage.
   Low-ball settlements save insurers billions annually. CLF disrupts this model by giving consumers the financial means to reject unfair offers.
3. Regulatory advantage.
   By conflating CLF with commercial litigation finance, insurers push for broad disclosure and restrictions that would make CLF less accessible, thereby tilting the field back in their favor.

In short, attacks on CLF are less about economics and more about control of the settlement process.

Consumer Stories: The Human Impact

Behind every policy debate are real people. Consider these examples:

• Maria, a single mother in Ohio, suffered a serious injury in a car accident. While her case moved through litigation, she was unable to work. A $3,000 funding allowed her to pay rent and avoid eviction. Her case later settled for fair value based on her medical damages, not because she received CLF.
• James, a factory worker in Tennessee, used a $4,500 funding to cover medical co-pays and keep food on the table for his family. Without CLF, he would have been pressured to accept an early, inadequate settlement. His attorney, free from outside interference, negotiated based on case facts.

These stories illustrate that CLF prevents forced settlements, a concept fundamentally at odds with the idea of social inflation.

Reframing the Debate: CLF as a Consumer Protection Tool

Instead of vilifying CLF, policymakers and regulators should recognize it as a consumer protection mechanism that:

• Preserves access to justice by ensuring consumers can sustain themselves while cases proceed.
• Protects vulnerable populations from financial exploitation by insurers.
• Operates transparently under statutory frameworks that prohibit interference with litigation.
• Provides an alternative to payday loans or credit card debt.

By reframing CLF in this way, legislators can see that it is part of the solution to financial inequity in the justice system, not a contributor to systemic cost drivers like “social inflation”.

Conclusion

The narrative that Consumer Legal Funding contributes to social inflation is unsupported by evidence, inconsistent with the mechanics of the product, and misleading its intent. CLF does not increase jury awards, expand liability doctrines, or drive insurance premiums. Instead, it provides a lifeline for consumers caught in the limbo of pending legal claims.

Policymakers should reject the false linkage and recognize Consumer Legal Funding for what it is: a narrow, humane financial product that has nothing to do with so called “social inflation”, but everything to do with justice and survival.

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

—

When people talk about third party litigation financing, they often lump everything into one bucket—as if every type of funding that touches the legal system is essentially the same. But that’s a misconception. The world of legal finance is much more varied, and each type serves a distinct role for a distinct audience.

A good way to understand the differences is to step away from the courtroom and into the world of music. Think of Consumer Legal Funding as a rock band, Commercial Litigation Financing as a symphony orchestra, and Attorney Portfolio Financing as a gospel choir.

All three make music—they all provide funding connected to the legal system—but they produce very different sounds, are organized differently, and serve different purposes. Let’s explore these three “musical groups” of legal funding to understand how they work, why they exist, and what separates them.

Consumer Legal Funding: The Rock Band

Immediate, Personal, and Audience-Driven

A rock band connects directly with its fans. The music is raw, emotional, and often tied to the lived experiences of ordinary people. That’s exactly what Consumer Legal Funding does—it provides individuals with direct financial support while they are waiting for their personal injury cases to resolve.

Most people who seek consumer legal funding have been in a car accident, or experienced some other harm caused by negligence. While their cases work their way through the legal system, they still need to pay rent, buy groceries, keep the lights on, and support their families. Consumer Legal Funding steps in to help them cover these day-to-day expenses.

Like a rock band that thrives on the energy of a crowd, Consumer Legal Funding is closely tied to the needs of everyday people. It’s not about abstract legal theories or corporate strategy. It’s about giving real people financial breathing room so they can withstand the pressure from insurers who might otherwise push them to settle for less than they deserve.

Flexibility and Accessibility

Just as a rock band doesn’t require a massive concert hall or multimillion-dollar backing, Consumer Legal Funding is accessible on a small, personal scale. A consumer can request a few hundred or a few thousand dollars to cover immediate needs, and repayment is contingent on the case outcome. If the plaintiff loses, they owe nothing.

This non-recourse structure mirrors the risk of a rock band going on tour—they might make money, or they might not, but the fans are there for the experience. Similarly, Consumer Legal Funding companies take the risk that the case might not succeed, and they may not get their investment back.

Critics and Misconceptions

Rock bands often face criticism for being too loud, too disruptive, or too unconventional compared to “serious” classical music. Consumer Legal Funding gets similar pushback. Critics sometimes argue it encourages frivolous lawsuits or drives up settlement costs. But the reality is the opposite—the funds provided to a consumer doesn’t fund lawsuits; they fund life necessities for individuals already in the legal system.

Consumer Legal Funding’s role is narrow but vital. Like a rock band giving a voice to ordinary people, it empowers individuals who might otherwise be silenced by financial hardship.

Commercial Litigation Financing: The Symphony Orchestra

Complex, Structured, and High-Stakes

Where Consumer Legal Funding is the rock band of the legal funding world, Commercial Litigation Financing is the full symphony orchestra—large, complex, and meticulously coordinated.

Here, the players are not individuals injured in accidents but corporations, investors, and law firms involved in high-value commercial disputes. These cases can involve intellectual property battles, antitrust issues, international contract disputes, or shareholder actions. The stakes often run into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Like an orchestra, Commercial Litigation Financing is structured and multi-layered. Each section—strings, brass, woodwinds, percussion—must work together under the baton of a conductor. In litigation finance, this “conductor” is the funding company, aligning investors, lawyers, and plaintiffs toward a common goal: seeing the case through to resolution.

Strategic and Long-Term

Orchestras don’t play three-minute songs; they perform long symphonies that require endurance, precision, and careful planning. Similarly, Commercial Litigation Financing is not about immediate cash flow. It’s about supporting a complex legal strategy over years of litigation.

Funds can cover attorney fees, expert witnesses, discovery costs, and even corporate operations while a case drags on. The financing enables companies to pursue claims they might otherwise abandon because of the sheer cost and duration of litigation.

Audience and Impact

The audience for an orchestra is often more formal, more elite, and more willing to pay for a grand performance. Commercial Litigation Financing likewise serves a specialized, high-stakes audience: multinational corporations, hedge funds, and sophisticated investors. The outcomes affect entire industries and markets, not just individual households.

While a rock band might play in bars or stadiums, an orchestra plays in concert halls before an audience expecting refinement. That’s the difference in scale between Consumer Legal Funding and Commercial Litigation Financing.

Attorney Portfolio Financing: The Gospel Choir

Collective Strength and Community

If Consumer Legal Funding is a rock band and Commercial Litigation Financing is a symphony orchestra, then Attorney Portfolio Financing is a gospel choir. It’s powerful, collective, and rooted in the idea of strength in numbers.

Attorney Portfolio Financing provides capital to law firms by pooling together multiple cases—often personal injury or contingency fee cases—into one financing arrangement. Instead of betting on a single case, the funding spreads across a portfolio, much like the voices of a choir blend to create a unified sound.

Stability and Predictability

A gospel choir doesn’t rely on one soloist to carry the performance. If one voice falters, the rest keep singing. Similarly, portfolio financing reduces risk because the outcome of any one case doesn’t determine the success of the financing. The strength lies in the collective performance of many cases.

This allows law firms to take on more clients, expand their practices, and better withstand the financial ups and downs of litigation. For clients, it means their attorneys have the resources to see their cases through rather than being pressured into quick settlements.

Purpose and Spirit

Gospel choirs aren’t just about music—they’re about inspiration, resilience, and community. Attorney Portfolio Financing carries a similar spirit. It’s designed not only to provide financial stability for law firms but also to empower them to serve clients more effectively.

While the audience for a gospel choir is often the community itself, the “audience” for portfolio financing is law firms and, indirectly, the clients who benefit from better-resourced representation.

Comparing the Three Sounds

To appreciate the differences, let’s put the three side by side:

Why These Distinctions Matter

Understanding these distinctions isn’t just an academic exercise—it has real implications for policy, regulation, and public perception. Too often, critics conflate Consumer Legal Funding with Commercial Litigation Financing or assume Attorney Portfolio Financing operates the same way as individual case advances.

But regulating a rock band as if it were an orchestra—or treating a gospel choir as if it were a solo act—would miss the point entirely. Each type of legal funding has its own purpose, structure, and audience.

• Consumer Legal Funding keeps people afloat in times of crisis.
• Commercial Litigation Financing enables corporations to fight complex battles on equal footing.
• Attorney Portfolio Financing stabilizes law firms and expands access to justice.

All three are part of the broader “music” of legal finance, but they are distinct genres with distinct contributions.

Conclusion: Harmony Through Diversity

Music would be dull if every performance sounded the same. The same is true for legal finance. A rock band, a symphony orchestra, and a gospel choir all create music, but their sounds, audiences, and purposes differ dramatically.

Similarly, Consumer Legal Funding, Commercial Litigation Financing, and Attorney Portfolio Financing are all forms of legal finance, but each plays a unique role. Recognizing these differences is crucial for policymakers, industry professionals, and the public.

When we appreciate the rock band, the orchestra, and the choir for what they are, we begin to see the full richness of the legal finance “soundtrack.” Together, they form a diverse ecosystem that, when balanced correctly, ensures both individuals and institutions can pursue justice without being silenced by financial pressure.

Golden Pear Funding has extended and upsized its investment-grade corporate note to $78.7 million, further bolstering the firm’s capacity to serve the expanding litigation finance sector. The New York-based funder, a national leader in both pre-settlement and medical receivables financing, said the proceeds will support working capital and fuel strategic growth initiatives.

A press release from Golden Pear outlines how the capital raise reflects continued investor confidence in the firm’s business model. CEO Gary Amos noted that the infusion is critical as Golden Pear seeks to scale alongside the “rapidly expanding litigation finance market.” CFO Daniel Amsellem added that the new funding aligns with the company’s capital allocation strategy, aimed at optimizing operational efficiency and executing strategic projects.

Brean Capital, LLC acted as the exclusive financial advisor and sole placement agent on the transaction.

Founded in 2008, Golden Pear has funded more than $1.1 billion to over 87,000 clients and remains one of the largest specialty finance companies in the U.S. Its business model spans legal case funding and medical receivables purchasing, with backing from a network of private equity partners that provide institutional support for continued expansion.

Mayfair Legal Funding has unveiled a new initiative aimed at aiding wildfire victims in Los Angeles and Maui by providing pre-settlement advances tailored to individuals pursuing legal claims related to recent wildfire disasters. The program seeks to ease the financial burden on plaintiffs during the lengthy litigation process, allowing them to cover essential living expenses and medical costs without being forced into early or inadequate settlements.

An article in OpenPR reports that Mayfair’s program will provide wildfire-impacted claimants with cash advances while their cases proceed through court or settlement negotiations. The funding is non-recourse, meaning recipients are only obligated to repay the advance if their case is successful. This offering is particularly timely in light of the mounting legal battles related to utility-sparked wildfires in California and the catastrophic 2023 fires in Maui, both of which have left thousands seeking legal recourse and financial recovery.

Mayfair emphasized that this initiative aligns with its mission to ensure access to justice regardless of a claimant’s financial status. “We believe that no one should have to choose between basic survival and pursuing a rightful claim,” said a spokesperson for the funder, noting that the company’s underwriting process is designed for speed and minimal paperwork.

With natural disasters on the rise and litigation timelines stretching longer than ever, targeted pre-settlement funding like this may become an increasingly vital tool for plaintiffs. The wildfire-specific program from Mayfair underscores a growing trend of funders developing specialized products for mass torts and disaster-related litigation—an area likely to see heightened investor and regulatory attention in the years ahead.

The below is a sponsored post from Express Legal Funding.

Express Legal Funding, a leader in the pre-settlement funding industry, has officially launched the Express Legal Funding Portal and mobile app suite—now available on iOS, Android, and web. The innovative platform gives plaintiffs real-time access to their funding application status, document uploads, and direct case communication—all from a secure, user-friendly interface.

Since launch, the platform has already seen over 200 app installs across iOS and Android, reflecting strong early adoption and client demand for greater transparency, speed, and convenience in the legal funding process.

“This is the kind of digital leap our industry needed,” said Aaron Winston, Phd, Strategy Director at Express Legal Funding. “With the Express Legal Funding Portal, clients no longer have to wait days for updates or navigate confusing paperwork. Now they can check their status, send documents, and message us—all in one place, and on their own time, anytime 24,7. Ray Bivona, our Operations Manager, did a great job building out the platform.”

Meeting the Demand for Speed, Simplicity, and Security

The Express Legal Funding Portal and apps are designed to meet the evolving expectations of legal consumers, as reports indicate the industry has surpassed $1 billion in annual advances nationwide. Key features include:

• Live Case Status Tracking: Monitor the full legal funding timeline in real time
• Secure Document Uploads: Send attorney correspondence and case files instantly
• In-App Messaging: Communicate directly with case managers—no long hold times or email delays
• Push Notifications: Get instant alerts for updates, requests, and approvals
• Funding Calculator: Estimate pre-settlement cash eligibility based on case type
• Bank-Level Encryption: Ensures client privacy and legal compliance at every step

“Clients tell us this is the best communication experience they’ve had with a legal funding company,” said Shawn Hashmi, Chief Executive Officer at Express Legal Funding. “The high number of downloads in such a short time proves there’s a real demand for this kind of tool.”

Transforming the Legal Funding Experience for Plaintiffs and Attorneys

The Express Legal Funding Portal improves operational efficiency and transparency on both sides of the process:

• For Plaintiffs: Offers peace of mind and greater control during a financially vulnerable time
• For Attorneys: Reduces administrative back-and-forth, freeing up time to focus on litigation

About Express Legal Funding

Express Legal Funding is a trusted national provider of non-recourse pre-settlement funding, helping plaintiffs access fast, risk-free financial relief while their lawsuits move through the legal system. Repayment is only required if the client wins or settles their case.

The company has served thousands of injured plaintiffs in cases involving car accidents, slip and falls, product liability, and more.

What’s Coming Next

In addition to the current features, the platform aims to expand in the coming months with:

• Attorney Dashboard: Real-time access for law firms to manage client funding
• In-App Renewals: Easy follow-up funding requests for returning clients
• Case Management Integrations: Compatibility with popular personal injury law firm software platforms like Clio, Filevine, and SmartAdvocate

Legal Bay Presettlement Funding reports that over 50 plaintiffs have filed suit against San Diego County, alleging sexual abuse while minors at the Polinsky Children’s Center during the 90s and 2000s. Accusations also include being drugged and verbally abused by staff members, not to mention the years of trauma the victims have endured.

The lawsuits, announced during a press conference last Friday, were filed by survivors now coming forward as adults to seek justice and accountability. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs say the abuse occurred at a time when the children were placed at Polinsky for their safety and protection. Attorney Joseph Woodhall, who is representing many of the plaintiffs, encouraged other victims to come forward and start the journey toward healing.

The recent filings follow a wave of litigation from September 2024 when Los Angeles-based firm Slater Slater Schulman filed similar complaints on behalf of more than 100 former residents of the Polinsky Center.

Both firms are now collaborating to pursue justice and compensation for the growing number of clients who have come forward. Survivors or others with knowledge of abuse at the Polinsky Children’s Center are encouraged to contact the legal teams involved

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, says, “Legal Bay is tracking the development of these cases in California, unfortunately our research indicates a similar pattern of sexual abuse we have seen in other litigations throughout the country. Oftentimes the victims are so traumatized, it’s hard for them to get by financially month-to-month, and legal funding cash advances are a way to help them bridge the gap to a meaningful settlement. We will continue to aid victims of sex abuse claims, as well as pledge our support for the victims’ pursuit of their personal justice.”

If you’re the plaintiff in an existing lawsuit and need an immediate advance against your anticipated cash settlement award, you can apply HERE or call: 877.571.0405. If you were a victim of sexual abuse and need an attorney, Legal-Bay can also help you find legal representation. 

Legal-Bay lawsuit funding remains vigilant in helping clients who have experienced childhood sexual abuse. Additionally, any new clients that have an existing lawsuit and need cash now can apply for regular settlement funding to help them get through their own crises. Legal-Bay funds all types of loan on lawsuit programs including personal injury, slips and falls, car accident lawsuit, medical malpractice, dog bites, and more.

Legal-Bay is one of the best lawsuit funding companies when it comes to providing immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff’s anticipated monetary award. The non-recourse legal funding—sometimes referred to as loans on lawsuit or loans on lawsuits—are risk-free, as the money doesn’t need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case. Therefore, the lawsuit funding isn’t really a loan, but rather a cash advance.

To apply right now, please visit the company’s website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by.

As hernia mesh lawsuits continue to progress against major medical device manufacturers, Mayfair Legal Funding is stepping forward with financial solutions to support plaintiffs awaiting settlements. As a trusted provider of pre-settlement funding, Mayfair is committed to helping victims of defective hernia mesh implants manage their financial needs while pursuing justice.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits and Manufacturer Liability

Hernia mesh implants, designed to provide long-term repair for hernias, have been linked to severe complications such as chronic pain, infections, adhesion, and organ perforation. Many affected individuals have filed lawsuits against manufacturers like C.R. Bard, Ethicon (a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary), and Medtronic, alleging that their mesh products were defectively designed and failed to provide the promised benefits.

The legal process for these cases is extensive, with thousands of plaintiffs waiting for settlements. A significant development occurred in October 2024 when C.R. Bard reached a settlement agreement involving approximately 38,000 lawsuits, though financial relief for many plaintiffs is still pending. As litigation continues, Mayfair Legal Funding is ensuring that victims are not forced into premature settlements due to financial strain.

Providing Relief During Lengthy Legal Proceedings

Hernia mesh complications can result in multiple surgeries, chronic pain, infections, and organ damage, significantly affecting victims’ quality of life. However, proving liability in court is a complex process that can extend for years. Manufacturers and their insurers frequently employ delaying tactics, making it difficult for plaintiffs to maintain financial stability while waiting for a fair settlement.

Many individuals who file lawsuits cannot work due to their medical conditions, yet they must continue paying for essential needs, ongoing healthcare, and legal costs. The prolonged nature of these lawsuits means that victims are often financially pressured to settle prematurely, even if their case could result in higher compensation with more time.

Why Legal Funding Matters

The pressure to settle early for a lower amount is common in hernia mesh litigation. Insurance companies and medical device manufacturers often attempt to delay proceedings, making it difficult for plaintiffs to maintain financial stability. Lawsuit loans allow plaintiffs to access a portion of their expected settlement upfront, helping cover urgent expenses such as medical treatments, rent, utilities, and other living costs. This financial support ensures that plaintiffs are not forced into disadvantageous settlements due to economic pressure.

Eligibility and Application Process

Plaintiffs who have filed a hernia mesh lawsuit and are represented by an attorney may be eligible for funding. Mayfair Legal Funding works closely with law firms handling hernia mesh cases to ensure that plaintiffs can access financial assistance without delays.

About Mayfair Legal Funding

Mayfair Legal Funding is a trusted provider of pre-settlement funding, helping plaintiffs in medical device lawsuits, including hernia mesh cases, stay financially stable while awaiting settlements. With a risk-free, non-recourse funding model, plaintiffs only repay if they win their case. Mayfair ensures fast approvals, access to funds within 24 hours, and no credit checks. To date, the company has provided $45 million in funding with a 94% approval rate.

As the lawsuit funding industry continues to grow, Legal-Bay Lawsuit Settlement Funding is issuing a public advisory to plaintiffs navigating the complex and often underregulated pre-settlement loan landscape. The company urges consumers to remain vigilant against deceptive contract practices and highlights its own commitment to transparency, fairness, and ethical funding solutions.

While pre-settlement funding can offer critical financial relief during lengthy legal battles, Legal-Bay warns that not all funding companies operate ethically. In particular, the firm is cautioning plaintiffs to avoid contracts that include compounding pricing models, hidden fees, and vague language, common tactics used by unscrupulous funders.  Legal-Bay also offers refinancing’s in event you have a large legal funding lien with a bad compounding rate and want cheaper pricing.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, says, “Too often we see plaintiffs fall victim to exploitative funding agreements that leave them owing far more than they borrowed, especially after years of compounding costs buried in the fine print. Many of these contracts are intentionally confusing, designed to mislead consumers. At Legal-Bay, we offer refinancing options on large funding buyouts, by converting your existing compounding lien into a flat pricing lien – no different than a home mortgage refi.”

If you are involved in any active litigation and would like to discuss how to get a cash advance from your anticipated lawsuit settlement, please visit the company’s website HERE or call 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to hear about your specific case.  

Legal-Bay outlines several red flags that plaintiffs should watch out for when considering a pre-settlement advance:

• Compounding interest without clear repayment terms: Some funders fail to disclose how much a plaintiff will owe over time, resulting in balances that balloon dramatically after two or three years.
• Vague or misleading contract language: Important terms are often hidden in fine print or presented in confusing legal jargon.
• Discouraging attorney involvement: Ethical funders will encourage plaintiffs to review all funding agreements with their attorneys instead of trying to edge them out of the discussion.
• Lack of disclosure about maximum repayment: Some contracts leave plaintiffs uncertain about how much will ultimately be deducted from their settlement.

In contrast, Legal-Bay’s approach is rooted in transparency, fairness, and full attorney cooperation. All of their contracts are structured to include straightforward terms, capped repayment amounts, and no compounding interest. Plaintiffs and their attorneys are given full access to review and understand the terms before any funding is finalized.

Legal-Bay’s dedication to ethical funding has made it a trusted name in loan on lawsuit funding for plaintiffs in personal injury, sexual abuse, motor vehicle accidents, medical malpractice, dog bite, commercial litigation, and many more.

Legal-Bay’s lawsuit funding programs are designed to provide immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff’s anticipated monetary award. While it’s common to refer to these legal funding requests as loans on lawsuit or settlement loans, legal funding isn’t like a loan at all. Because the funds are non-recourse, there’s no risk since there is no obligation to repay the money if the recipient loses their case.

To apply right now for a loan settlement program, please visit the company’s website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to answer any questions.

Legal-Bay Pre-settlement Lawsuit Funding, a longtime leader in presettlement and legal funding, has unveiled a new financing program designed to help attorneys cover the high costs of building and preparing cases for trial without relying on bank loans or credit lines.

Case costs can include everything from medical records to expert witnesses to life care plans to court fees. Legal-Bay’s funding lessens the upfront financial strain by providing capital that’s only repaid if the lawsuit is successful, and gives legal professionals fast, flexible access to extra money when they need it most. The program allows attorneys to secure resources for experts, depositions, court filings, and other necessary expenses without tying up firm assets or tapping into their own expense accounts.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, says, “Legal-Bay’s attorney or law firm case cost funding program is tailored to help small and medium firms get the ball across the goal line to win big cases. We are a resource for lawyers nationwide to utilize case cost funding when cash flow is tight, without long underwriting processes, credit checks or monthly payments.  Best of all, our non-recourse funding means you only pay if you win the case.”

If you’re a lawyer or law firm in need of extra case cost funding in advance of your case’s anticipated settlement award, you can apply HERE or call: 877.571.0405

With nearly 20 years of experience in legal finance, Legal-Bay has earned the trust of thousands of attorneys and law firms across the country. The company’s commitment to fast approvals, transparent terms, and case-first evaluations has made it a go-to resource for professionals seeking a smarter way to manage litigation costs.

Legal-Bay is one of the best legal funding companies in the industry, known for their helpful staff and quick turnaround. They fund almost every type of lawsuit including personal injury, slips and falls, sexual discrimination, assault, or abuse, motor vehicle accidents, wrongful incarceration, and more. While sometimes legal funding is referred to as loans on lawsuit or lawsuit loans, there are no credit checks or collateral required. The money is an immediate cash advance against a plaintiff’s anticipated settlement award, not a conventional loan. The non-recourse lawsuit funding is risk-free, as the money doesn’t need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case.

To apply right now, please visit the company’s website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to answer your questions.

Legal-Bay, a leading pre-settlement funding company, has introduced a game-changing financial solution for plaintiffs embroiled in active litigation. Their newly launched INSTALL funding contract offers clients the ability to receive structured monthly payments instead of a traditional one-time advance, easing the burden of everyday living expenses during the often lengthy legal process.

This innovative funding option addresses a growing need among plaintiffs who face significant financial strain while their cases are pending. With INSTALL funding, individuals can rely on predictable monthly disbursements designed to cover essential costs such as legal fees, medical bills, and everyday housing expenses, allowing them to focus on their case without the added pressure of missed bills or mounting debt.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, says, “Legal battles can be incredibly stressful, especially when they drag on for months or even years. We created INSTALL funding to provide ongoing financial stability for our customers when they need it the most, when they are stuck at home and can’t work, but still need to have their bills paid on the first of the month.”

INSTALL funding is one of Legal-Bay’s most popular products, because lawyers know their clients cannot fight a case without cash flow coming in each month.

So, if you are a lawyer and have a client—or If you’re a plaintiff yourself—in an existing lawsuit who needs an immediate INSTALL funding contract against an anticipated cash settlement award, you can apply HERE or call: 877.571.0405

Unlike standard bank loans which often involve large lump sums and steep repayment terms, INSTALL funding is tailored to meet real-life needs. Clients only draw what they require each month, which can significantly lower the total repayment after a case is settled. This targeted approach helps prevent excessive borrowing and encourages responsible financial planning throughout the litigation process.

By providing installation-based funding with client-friendly terms, Legal-Bay offers clear, flexible solutions to their customers’ financial needs. The program is ideal for individuals involved in personal injury, slip and fall, medical malpractice, motor vehicle accident, Workers Comp. or 3rd party workers comp. claims or work injury claims, and many other types of cases.

Legal-Bay is one of the best legal funding companies in the industry, known for their helpful staff and quick turnaround. While sometimes pre-settlement funds are referred to as loans on lawsuit or lawsuit loans, there are no credit checks or collateral required for legal funding. The money is an immediate cash advance against a plaintiff’s anticipated settlement award, not a conventional loan. The non-recourse lawsuit funding is risk-free, as the money doesn’t need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case.

To apply right now, please visit the company’s website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to answer your questions.

The following was contributed by Joel Magerman, Managing Partner of Bryant Park Capital, a leading investment bank specializing in litigation finance, with over 35 completed transactions totaling more than $2.4 billion in this sector alone.

Executive Summary: 

• Third-party funding for consumer litigants has been a growing industry in the U.S. since the 1980s.  
• The need for third-party litigation funding emerged because banks do not typically provide advances to litigants whose only collateral is potential proceeds from lawsuits. 
• Today, there are over two hundred companies providing pre-settlement and medical lien litigation funding to individual claimants. 
• Over the past 25 years, consumer litigation finance has matured into an investment grade asset, with over 25 separate securitizations representing over $2.7 billion of invested capital since 2018. 

Why the need for litigation funding? Insurance companies have found that a plaintiff’s need for a financial settlement is often a driving force in settling a case for a lower amount than if the case runs its course to a hearing. Litigation financing provides equal footing to a plaintiff to pursue claims due to an injury they have incurred due to another party’s actions or negligence.

A recipient of litigation funding benefits from certainty and speed of funding, and the fact that the funding is non-recourse. For the attorney representing the client, litigation funding allows the legal process to play out and maximize the plaintiff’s settlement while providing some financial relief until a settlement is finalized. At the same time, third-party litigation funders see the potential upside in underwriting pending lawsuits and earning a return on non-recourse advances. Generally, third-party litigation funders have no control over the litigation they fund, allowing the plaintiff and their legal counsel to decide their legal strategy. 

Medical lien funding, which is closely related to consumer pre-settlement funding, provides funding to providers of medical services (imaging, doctors visits, physical therapy, surgery, etc.) to these same plaintiffs who cannot pay the medical provider until a claim is adjudicated and paid. Funding these liens is effectuated by buying the lien or the LOP (Letter of Protection) from the medical provider, depending upon state statutes.  

General Industry Data (Pre-Settlement Litigation Funding) 

• Funding amount as percentage of expected case value: ~10-15% 
• Typical funding size: $1,000-$50,000 
• Asset-level IRR for the funder: typically 25-35%  
• Multiple on invested capital: 1.4-2.0x 
• Weighted average life: 1-3 years 
• Application time to funding: typically a couple of days 
• Number of market funders: 200+ 
• Non-recourse to the plaintiff  

An Emerging Asset Class 

In recent years, consumer litigation financing has become more attractive to investors due to rising inflation, increasing interest rates, and volatility of many other classes of investments. The consistent robust returns that are uncorrelated with the economy make litigation funding attractive. Alternative lenders and multi-strategy funds have invested in litigation finance, with U.S. funders categorized into dedicated funders (specialize in litigation finance), multi-strategy funders (entities that have established a dedicated litigation finance strategy), and ad hoc funders (occasional participants in litigation finance). These investors have increasingly diversified their investments, by allocating funds to multi-claim portfolios and making fewer single-case investments. 

 Institutional investors have continued to enter the litigation funding industry, both through directly funding litigation and through providing billions of dollars of financing to litigation funding companies. There have been approximately $2.7 billion of securitizations of consumer pre-settlement assets since 2018, plus billions of dollars of advances to market participants from credit opportunity and hedge funds, as well as private equity firms such as Blackstone, Parthenon, Further Global, Edmond De Rothschild, and UBS. We expect that the investor sentiment of diversifying into litigation finance will continue in coming years. 

Learn More 

To uncover additional industry and investment insights, download the full BPC Litigation Finance Industry Primer. 

A newly released study from Express Legal Funding, conducted with the help of SurveyMonkey, reveals that while 34% of Americans say they trust ChatGPT more than human experts, the majority still draw a hard line when it comes to using generative AI for serious matters like legal or medical advice. The findings highlight a growing national tension between fascination with artificial intelligence and fear of misusing it for high-stakes decisions.

Key Findings from the ChatGPT Trust Survey:

• 60% of U.S. adults have used ChatGPT to seek advice or information—signaling widespread awareness and early adoption.
• Of those who used it, 70% said the advice was helpful, suggesting that users generally find value in the chatbot’s responses.
• The most trusted use cases for ChatGPT are:
  • Career advice
  • Educational support
  • Product recommendations
• The least trusted use cases are:
  • Legal advice
  • Medical advice
• 34% of respondents say they trust ChatGPT more than a human expert in at least one area.
• Despite its growing popularity, only 11.1% believe ChatGPT will improve their personal financial situation.
• Younger adults (ages 18–29) and Android and iPhone users report significantly higher trust in ChatGPT compared to older generations and Desktop (Mac/Windows) users.
• Older adults and high-income earners remain the most skeptical about ChatGPT’s reliability and societal role.
• When asked about the broader implications of AI, only 14.1% of respondents strongly agree that ChatGPT will benefit humanity.

Expert Insight:

“This study highlights how many Americans are navigating the fast-growing influence of generative AI and natural language processing agents in their daily lives and that ChatGPT is far from being just a fringe use tool,” said Aaron Winston, PhD, Strategy Director at Express Legal Funding and lead author of the report. “Most people are open to using ChatGPT for advice—and over a third even say they trust it more than a human expert. But when it comes to high-stakes decisions involving legal, financial, or medical matters, most still prefer real-world professionals. It’s a sign that while AI is gaining ground quickly, trust is still tied to context.”

Why It Matters:

As AI tools like ChatGPT become more integrated into everyday life, understanding where people draw the line between curiosity and trust is critical. This distinction helps reveal not only how Americans are using AI today but also where they’re still relying on human expertise for reassurance and accuracy.

About Express Legal Funding:

Express Legal Funding is a leading pre-settlement funding company headquartered in Plano, Texas, serving plaintiffs nationwide. Recognized for its commitment to ethical funding practices and consumer advocacy, the firm provides non-recourse financial support to individuals involved in personal injury and civil lawsuits—helping clients cover essential living expenses while their legal claims move forward. Beyond funding, Express Legal Funding is a trusted voice in the legal tech and finance space, publishing original research and data-driven insights that inform public discourse and guide industry best practices.