Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Chris Janish, CEO, Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding
Consumer Investor's Corner Special Features Thought Leadership

Consumer Pre-Settlement Litigation Funding: An Emerging Asset Class 

By Joel Magerman |
May 1, 2025

Consumer Pre-Settlement Litigation Funding: An Emerging Asset Class 

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. 

About the author

Joel Magerman

Joel Magerman

Consumer

View All
Consumer

Counsel Financial Enables $35 Million Commercial Bank Credit Facility for National Plaintiffs’ Firm

By John Freund |

Counsel Financial has supported a $35 million commercial bank credit facility for a national plaintiffs' litigation firm, replacing an existing financing arrangement with a larger facility and materially reducing the firm's cost of capital. The transaction is the latest example of specialized litigation finance underwriting unlocking cheaper bank debt for contingent fee practices.

According to ACCESS Newswire, the facility is secured by a diversified portfolio of litigation assets spanning single-event personal injury cases, mass torts, and class actions. Counsel Financial served as underwriter, collateral monitoring agent, and servicer, working alongside the commercial bank to structure and execute the deal.

For the borrowing firm, the new facility delivers improved pricing and more flexible loan terms — expected to generate millions in annual cost savings — while expanding capacity to manage a growing docket, pursue resolutions more efficiently, and invest in future opportunities. The refinancing also replaces an existing lender arrangement, a pattern increasingly common as plaintiffs' firms mature and graduate from higher-cost early-stage capital to lower-cost institutional debt.

The deal reinforces the role of litigation finance specialists as intermediaries between commercial banks and plaintiff firms, translating contingent fee inventories into collateral pools that mainstream lenders can underwrite with confidence. Counsel Financial has deployed more than $2 billion to U.S. law firms since 2000 and serviced over $10 billion in case collateral, leveraging proprietary data and ongoing portfolio monitoring to support bank participation in a market still viewed as opaque by many traditional lenders.

As bank appetite for litigation-backed facilities grows, transactions like this one point to a gradual institutionalization of plaintiff-side law firm financing — one in which specialized underwriters, rather than banks themselves, shoulder the analytical burden of evaluating contingent fee collateral.

Consumer

Florida Advocacy Group Presses Lawmakers to Include TPLF Reform in Special Session

By John Freund |

Florida Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (FL CALA) is urging state lawmakers to add third-party litigation funding reform to the agenda of an upcoming special session, arguing that disclosure rules are the missing piece in Florida's multi-year push to stabilize its insurance and civil justice markets. The call positions TPLF oversight as a natural extension of the state's recent tort reforms rather than a new regulatory frontier.

As reported by AOL, in an op-ed authored by FL CALA Executive Director Tom Gaitens, the group contends that litigation funding remains "an unregulated force within our legal system" capable of prolonging cases and inflating settlements. Gaitens cites data from the Perryman Group estimating that TPLF costs the U.S. economy 454,000 jobs and adds roughly $502 in annual expenses to the average household, and points to Florida's recent insurance-market gains — including 17 new carriers entering the state and the lowest year-over-year increase in homeowners' premiums nationwide — as evidence that structural reforms are working.

The op-ed frames disclosure, not prohibition, as the central ask. Gaitens argues that transparency would "ensure that all parties understand who is truly backing a lawsuit and what interests may be influencing its verdict," echoing themes now surfacing at the federal Advisory Committee on Civil Rules.

If Florida moves, it would join a growing roster of states weighing funder-disclosure and consumer-legal-funding measures. Funders active in the state will be watching closely for the scope of any proposal, particularly whether it reaches commercial portfolios, consumer legal funding, or both.

Consumer

Consumer Legal Funding Framed as a Stabilizer for Households and Local Economies

By John Freund |

A new commentary argues that consumer legal funding plays a meaningful role in sustaining households through financial hardship and, by extension, in strengthening the local economies where funded consumers live and spend. The piece positions the product not as a litigation tool alone but as a form of short-term liquidity that helps injured plaintiffs avoid cascading financial setbacks while their cases proceed.

As reported by The National Law Review, the author contends that consumer legal funding is "about ensuring that financial hardship does not disrupt lives, destabilize communities, or weaken local economies." The analysis highlights that many recipients use advances to cover rent, groceries, transportation, and medical expenses while waiting for case resolution, rather than for discretionary spending.

The framing arrives as state legislatures continue to debate consumer legal funding regulation, with recent activity in Kansas and elsewhere focusing on disclosure, fee caps, and licensing. Industry advocates have increasingly emphasized the product's household-level impact to counter characterizations of the sector as purely a financial-services play, pointing to the demographic profile of consumers who turn to funders after an accident or injury.

For the broader litigation finance industry, the commentary reinforces an argument that has become central to the consumer side's legislative strategy: that restricting access to funding has downstream effects on working families who lack other bridge-financing options. How that argument lands with lawmakers weighing new transparency and pricing rules will continue to shape the regulatory map in 2026.