Trending Now
Consumer

Consumer Legal Funding: Support for People, Not Control Over Litigation

By Eric Schuller |
September 22, 2025

Consumer Legal Funding: Support for People, Not Control Over Litigation

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.

About the author

Eric Schuller

Eric Schuller

Consumer

View All
Consumer

ARC’s Schuller Argues Consumer Legal Funding Safeguards Have Become a Bipartisan Settlement

The president of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding has argued that consumer protection and access to legal funding are not competing goals, pointing to near-identical safeguards enacted in states at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Writing in the National Law Review, Eric Schuller compares the frameworks adopted in Kansas, Utah, California and New York and finds the same core provisions recurring regardless of which party controls the legislature. The starting point is the product itself: consumer legal funding is non-recourse, so repayment depends solely on the proceeds of the claim and a consumer who recovers nothing owes nothing.

From there, the statutes converge on disclosure. Kansas HB 2518 requires agreements to use "common, everyday language" and to state all charges and the maximum amount the consumer could owe; New York requires "common, understandable language" alongside a repayment schedule. Cancellation rights follow a similar pattern, with Kansas and New York providing ten business days, Utah HB 280 extending its window from five days to ten, and California allowing five business days to rescind.

Each state also builds in the claimant's attorney. Kansas requires an attorney acknowledgment confirming the disclosures were reviewed and that no referral fee was paid, without which the contract is null and void. All four bar funding companies from influencing the conduct, settlement or resolution of the claim, leaving those decisions with the consumer and counsel.

On enforcement, Kansas permits penalties of up to $10,000 per willful violation, California provides statutory damages and attorney's fees, and New York allows a company to forfeit its right to recovery.

Consumer

New York Times Investigation Examines Securitization of Consumer Legal Funding Advances

A New York Times investigation published Wednesday reports that some of the largest consumer legal funding companies are bundling cash advances made to personal injury plaintiffs into asset-backed securities sold to investors, and examines how that financing cycle interacts with a sharp rise in personal injury litigation.

As reported by The New York Times, reporters Ellen Gabler, Robert Gebeloff and Julie Tate identified six major funders that securitize their advances, accounting for more than 90% of advances nationwide according to industry trade group figures. The Times found more than two dozen securitization deals since 2020, representing hundreds of thousands of cases and raising $2.8 billion from investors. Advances carry fees and interest averaging 35% to 45% a year, and in one cited example a New York plaintiff who received $76,500 in advances owed at least $1.4 million by the time her case settled.

The article situates this alongside a 70% increase in personal injury filings in state courts over the past decade, and notes that since 2023 companies including Geico, Allstate, Uber and FedEx have brought at least 60 civil racketeering suits accusing lawyers and medical providers of inflating claims. Funders quoted in the piece dispute that fraud is widespread, with the American Legal Finance Association's Jack Kelly arguing that cutting off securitization would cut off the supply of money to victims. The Times also reports that more than a dozen states have restricted third-party litigation funding, with West Virginia the first to explicitly limit securitization.

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding responded to the report by calling for regulation rather than restriction.

"Some of the conduct described in The New York Times article is exactly the type of conduct responsible regulation should prevent," said Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. "New York has now put strong protections in place that directly address many of these concerns, while states such as Kansas have adopted similarly comprehensive regulatory frameworks. The answer is not to take Consumer Legal Funding away from injured consumers who need help paying their rent, mortgage, utilities or putting food on the table while their case moves through the legal system. The answer is to establish clear rules, enforce those rules and hold anyone who violates them accountable. Responsible regulation protects consumers while preserving access to Consumer Legal Funding for the people who truly need it."

Consumer

ARC Argues the Cost of Waiting Belongs in the Litigation Funding Debate

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding has published a commentary arguing that debates over litigation costs concentrate on indirect costs passed through the economy while overlooking the direct financial pressure on injured consumers waiting for their claims to resolve.

As reported by the National Law Review, the piece was written by Eric K. Schuller, president of ARC. It draws on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing average household expenditures reached $78,535 in 2024, or roughly $6,545 a month, with housing averaging $2,189 per month, transportation $1,110 and food approximately $847. Extended across a claim's lifespan, ordinary household expenditures average about $157,070 over 24 months and $235,605 over 36 months.

Schuller cites the Federal Reserve's 2026 report on household economic well-being, which found that only 63% of adults said they could cover a $400 emergency expense entirely with cash or its equivalent. The commentary argues that if many households struggle to absorb a $400 shock, expecting an injured consumer to absorb months or years of reduced income while a claim moves through the system is unrealistic.

The article is careful to note that the figures do not suggest an injured consumer must replace every dollar of normal household spending. It describes Consumer Legal Funding as non-recourse and not used to pay attorneys, writing that the funds "can help consumers meet ordinary household obligations" and that "if there is no recovery, the consumer owes the funding company nothing."