Trending Now
Consumer Special Features

Fair Pre-Settlement Funding – An Oxymoron or a Viable Alternative?

June 28, 2023

Fair Pre-Settlement Funding – An Oxymoron or a Viable Alternative?

The following article was contributed by Julia DiCristofaro, program administrator at The Milestone Foundation. “I have a good client who is in need of pre-settlement funding, which I almost always advise against. But she is desperate, and this case will settle soon. Do you think you can help?” As program administrator of The Milestone Foundation, the only nonprofit providing pre-settlement funding to plaintiffs in need, I often hear this sentiment. Non-recourse, pre-settlement funding companies market themselves as quick cash options for plaintiffs who are awaiting their settlements.  It’s an easy lure for an individual who has undergone a catastrophic incident, one that has likely left them injured and unable to work, or facing mounting medical bills; someone who knows they will eventually receive a sum of money to live off of, but in the meantime, might not be able to afford groceries or rent. Pre-settlement funding, also referred to as litigation finance, has grown exponentially in the past decade and is now estimated to be a nine-figure industry. For many plaintiffs, this funding is a necessary lifeline to financially stay afloat as their case resolves. Yet, there are few regulations for this type of funding, often referred to as the “Wild West” of the lending industry. Murky contracts comprised of complex language, confusing terms, hidden fees, and complicated interest calculations are common features of these advances. When an individual is desperate to make ends meet, terms like “compounding interest,” “quarterly fees,” and “capped at three times the principal” fade into the background, as “cash in less than 24 hours,” “no credit checks,” and “if you don’t win your case, you don’t owe anything” catch their attention and provide a glimmer of hope. As many attorneys can attest, once a case settles and the payment is due to the lender, this lack of transparency often renders plaintiffs shocked to see that they now owe as much as $30,000 on the $10,000 advance they received. Plaintiffs can feel duped or betrayed, and oftentimes look to their attorneys to solve the problem by negotiating “haircuts” with the funder, or even waiving their own fees. An attorney practicing in New Mexico shared: “I had a client who recently received a $50,000 settlement. She owes $16,000 on a $5,000 advance she took out, and is panicking at how little money she’s actually going to receive. I think I am going to have to waive my fees on the case just to help her stay afloat.” It’s no wonder so many attorneys discourage their clients from taking these advances, though for many individuals, these funds are more critical now than ever. Plaintiffs have long been at a disadvantage when pursuing justice against deep-pocketed corporations that can make lowball offers in mediation, or await the time it takes to go in front of a jury. As with many facets of life, the Covid pandemic has played a role in shaping the civil justice landscape, as social distancing guidelines resulted in overloaded dockets and delayed court dates for civil cases. As a result, the advantage held by insurance companies and other defendants in personal injury cases has increased, as they continue to accept premiums and pay out less in settlements. Meanwhile, as government programs such as stimulus checks and eviction moratoriums expire, inflation continues to skyrocket, and savings dwindle, the majority of Americans are barely making ends meet; at the end of 2022, 64% of the U.S. population was living paycheck to paycheck, an increase from 61% in 2021 according to a recent LendingClub report. Much to the dismay of many experienced attorneys, these contrary factors – lengthened trial timelines and increased financial need – make non-recourse funding a necessary component of the civil litigation landscape. Given the oftentimes exploitative nature of non-recourse advances, many states have introduced legislation or enacted regulations to rein in the industry. For instance, in Colorado, some courts have voided or re-written individual litigation financing agreements as traditional loans subject to low-interest rate ceilings. While this helps plaintiffs avoid unfair and predatory rates, it also discourages many funders from assuming the risk that is inherent in non-recourse funding, leaving few options for these injured parties, who will then pressure their attorneys to settle their lawsuits – often to the detriment of their awards. Trade organizations such as The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) and American Legal Finance Association (ALFA), often lobby state legislatures to prevent restrictions on the litigation finance industry. They argue that the non-recourse nature of the lending requires their members to assume a high level of risk that justifies their practices, as the plaintiffs are only required to repay these advances using the proceeds from their lawsuit; in the instance of an unfavorable result, the lender does not recoup their advance. ARC states that they support legislation that “enacts robust consumer legal protection for consumer legal funding and maintains consumer access, because good legislation does both.” Both ARC and ALFA champion industry best practices and sponsor legislation to reflect these practices. ARC’s best practices range from recommending that contracts reflect all costs and fees – showing how much the consumer will owe every six months, and the maximum amount a provider may ever own of a recovery – to prohibiting attorneys from receiving referral fees or commissions from the companies their clients receive their funding from. To date, six states have enacted ARC-backed legislation, while other bills are being reviewed in states like Kansas and Rhode Island. While the activities undertaken by ARC and ALFA are adding regulatory measures to the industry, some might argue that they are not going as far as necessary to truly benefit plaintiffs who are utilizing this funding. Maximum payments and fees are listed in contracts, but they are generally not easily found on websites, making it difficult for plaintiffs to compare shops, or truly understand what they will owe until they go through the strenuous application and underwriting process. Additionally, these trade organizations do not make recommendations on interest rates or maximum repayment amounts, which enables their members to continue to charge exorbitant rates and fees. But that’s not to say there are no ethical lenders in the space. Some companies are instituting policies such as capping repayment amounts at two times the principal, offering advances with simple interest that is applied every six months, helping to identify government support, and introducing innovations like debit cards that enable borrowers to pay for basic necessities. Another viable alternative to unethical lending is The Milestone Foundation, formerly known as the Bairs Foundation, which was created six years ago to provide a plaintiff-focused option in the pre-litigation space. The only nonprofit providing low, simple interest pre-settlement advances, the foundation has helped more than 600 plaintiffs by advancing more than $4.8 million and is looking to expand its reach to serve more clients across the country. Steven Shapiro, partner at Ogborn Mihm LLP in Colorado, has seen firsthand the benefits, as well as the pitfalls, of pre-settlement funding. “My job as an attorney is to get my clients the award they deserve. If they don’t have the resources to pay their rent or buy their groceries, they are going to feel pressured to settle, and I won’t have the time I need to bring the case to a fair resolution.” Shapiro has at times seen clients with no alternative other than to take out advances with 30 to 40 percent interest rates; while painful at the time, these clients were able to see their cases through to a reasonable conclusion. He’s also seen The Milestone Foundation at work. He recounts his client Olga, a Russian-American woman disabled in a car accident, who was in need of funding. He referred her to The Milestone Foundation. “The foundation was able to provide Olga a reasonable advance at a reasonable rate, that enabled her to afford her living expenses for the duration of the case, which took about two years to settle and resulted in a seven-figure award. The contract was transparent and really the most wonderful thing. I would always opt to refer my clients to The Milestone Foundation rather than other lenders whose practices tend to be much more opaque.” While pre-settlement funding is often condemned by principled attorneys working to protect the best interests of their clients, ethical lenders like The Milestone Foundation are working to give the industry a new reputation. As the only nonprofit in the industry, The Milestone Foundation protects the interests of plaintiffs over profits, and hopes to inspire other entities to implement a similar approach toward pre-settlement funding.

Consumer

View All
Consumer

Equal Justice Under the Law: Why Access to Justice Must Include the Ability to Wait for Justice

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

As the United States Supreme Court begins a new term, the words carved above the entrance to the Supreme Court Building deserve renewed attention: “Equal Justice Under Law.”

Those four words have greeted generations of Americans approaching the nation’s highest court. But the circumstances surrounding their placement on the Supreme Court Building make them particularly meaningful today.

The phrase was selected for the new Supreme Court Building in 1932, at a time when the United States was in the depths of the Great Depression. Millions of Americans were confronting unemployment, lost savings, financial insecurity, and uncertainty about their futures.

Against that backdrop, the nation chose to place a simple but powerful promise above the entrance to its highest court: Equal Justice Under Law.

Nearly a century later, that principle remains just as important.

Justice should not depend on wealth, influence, or a person's ability to withstand the financial pressures that can accompany a legal claim. Yet for many Americans, access to the courthouse is only part of the challenge. They also need the financial ability to remain there long enough for the legal process to work.

For an injured consumer pursuing a legitimate legal claim, a case can take months or even years to resolve. During that time, everyday financial obligations do not stop. Rent and mortgage payments still come due. Utilities must be paid. Families need food. Cars need gas, and medical and other household expenses continue.

That financial pressure can have a very real effect on access to justice.

The Economic Side of Access to Justice

When we discuss access to justice, the conversation often focuses on access to attorneys and courts. Those are essential, but there is another component that receives far less attention:

Can an individual afford to wait for a fair resolution of a claim?

A well-funded defendant or insurance company may have the financial resources to withstand a lengthy legal process. An individual consumer often does not.

That imbalance matters.

A person facing mounting household expenses may feel compelled to accept a settlement earlier than he or she otherwise would, not because the settlement represents the appropriate value of the claim, but because the electric bill, rent payment, or grocery bill cannot wait.

Consumer Legal Funding can help address that imbalance.

Consumer Legal Funding provides consumers with funds for personal and household needs while a legal claim is pending. It does not finance the litigation itself. The funds are not provided to pay attorneys, expert witnesses, court costs, or other expenses associated with prosecuting the case.

Instead, the money helps consumers meet the ordinary costs of living while their attorneys handle their legal claims.

Importantly, Consumer Legal Funding is non-recourse. Repayment depends upon the consumer obtaining a recovery from the legal claim. If there is no recovery, the consumer does not repay the funding.

Justice Should Not Have a Financial Clock

The principle of “Equal Justice Under Law” does not mean that every litigant will receive the same outcome. Nor should it.

It means that our system should provide a fair opportunity for claims and defenses to be considered on their merits.

Financial hardship should not become an unofficial clock running against an injured consumer.

Imagine two individuals with equally valid claims. One has enough savings to support a family for two years while the case proceeds. The other lives paycheck to paycheck and, because of an injury, may be unable to work at full capacity.

Both individuals technically have access to the same courts. Both may have competent attorneys. Both are protected by the same laws.

But their practical ability to pursue justice can be very different.

If one can afford to wait while the other must accept an early settlement simply to keep a roof over the family's head, we should recognize that economic circumstances have affected their ability to allow the legal process to work.

Consumer Legal Funding cannot solve every financial challenge confronting an injured consumer. But for consumers who choose it, funding can provide something extraordinarily important: Time.

Time to allow their attorneys to do their jobs.

Time for the facts to be developed.

Time for negotiations to proceed.

And time to make decisions about a legal claim based upon the merits of the case rather than the immediate pressure of household bills.

Protecting Consumers While Preserving Choice

Responsible regulation has an important role to play.

Consumers should receive clear contracts and disclosures. They should understand the cost of a funding transaction. Attorneys should acknowledge that their clients have entered into these agreements. Funding companies should never control litigation strategy, direct attorneys, or interfere with settlement decisions.

Those protections strengthen the marketplace.

But regulation should protect consumer choice, not eliminate it.

Policies that make Consumer Legal Funding unavailable or economically impractical do not eliminate the financial hardship that caused a consumer to seek funding in the first place.

The rent is still due.

The utility company still expects payment.

Groceries still have to be purchased.

Removing an option is not the same as removing the need.

A Promise That Still Matters

There is something especially significant about the fact that “Equal Justice Under Law” was placed on the Supreme Court Building during one of the most economically difficult periods in American history.

In 1932, financial hardship was not an abstract concept. It was a reality confronting millions of American families.

Yet at precisely that moment, as the country struggled through an extraordinary financial crisis, those words were chosen for the entrance to an institution intended to represent the rule of law and equal justice.

That history should remind us of something important today.

Economic hardship and access to justice have never existed in separate worlds

A legal right may exist on paper, but exercising that right can become extraordinarily difficult when a person is simultaneously worried about paying the mortgage, keeping the electricity on, buying groceries, or putting gas in the car.

As the Supreme Court begins another term, Americans will once again watch the Justices consider questions involving constitutional rights, federal law, the authority of government, and the responsibilities of individuals and institutions.

The cases will differ. The legal questions will differ. And reasonable people will disagree about how many of those cases should be decided.

But the words above the Court remain constant: Equal Justice Under Law.

Nearly a century after those words were placed on the Supreme Court Building during a period of profound economic uncertainty, their message remains relevant.

Justice should not belong only to those who can afford to wait for it.

Consumer Legal Funding helps give individuals the financial breathing room to allow the legal process to work. It does not determine the outcome of a case. It does not finance the litigation. And it does not replace the attorney-client relationship.

It helps consumers address the realities of everyday life while their legal claims proceed.

That is why Consumer Legal Funding belongs in the broader access-to-justice conversation.

Because the promise carved above our nation's highest court should extend beyond the courthouse steps. The strength of a person's legal rights should not be determined by the size of their bank account.

Consumer Legal Funding: Funding Lives, Not Litigation.

A version of this commentary first appeared in The National Law Review.

Commercial Consumer

ClaimAngel Reports $144M Deployed and 30,000 Fundings on Consumer Legal Funding Marketplace

South Florida consumer legal funding marketplace ClaimAngel says it has deployed more than $144 million across over 30,000 individual fundings since launching in April 2023, positioning standardised pricing as its answer to the cost criticisms that dog the consumer funding sector.

As reported by Refresh Miami, the platform runs a marketplace in which 27 funding providers compete for cases, with funders reserving a case in an average of 11 seconds. Advances carry 27.8% simple interest with no compounding and a 2x cap on total repayment, and remain non-recourse — plaintiffs owe nothing if the case is lost.

The company reports serving more than 14,500 plaintiffs and over 750 law firms, with 46 employees. A Case Equity product lets plaintiffs draw against expected case value for living expenses while litigation is pending.

ClaimAngel was co-founded by Jeremy Alters, a trial lawyer of more than two decades who was disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court in 2018 for misusing client funds, and his son Logan Alters. "I did things wrong. They were my fault. I take full responsibility for it," Jeremy Alters said, describing the company as "born out of an ethics issue." He applied for readmission to the Florida Bar in 2025.

Planned expansions include attorney funding, a secondary marketplace for buying and selling existing positions, and AngelScore, a data-driven underwriting system.

Consumer

Consumer Legal Funding: Beyond the Headlines, the Facts Tell a Different Story

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

Recent criticism has raised questions about cost, Wall Street investment, settlement influence, medical treatment, litigation costs and consumer protection. Those questions deserve answers. But the answers should begin with what Consumer Legal Funding actually is, how consumers use it, and the protections states are putting into law.

A Debate That Needs More Precision

Consumer Legal Funding has become the subject of increasingly negative headlines. Some articles characterize the product as a “lawsuit loan” or “predatory lending.” Others connect it to Wall Street securitization, social inflation, nuclear verdicts, medical treatment, prolonged litigation or outside influence over settlements. Still others discuss Consumer Legal Funding in the same breath as multimillion-dollar commercial Third-Party Litigation Financing.

Those are serious claims. Consumers deserve transparency. The legal system must remain independent. Attorneys must exercise their own professional judgment. Funding companies should not control settlements, direct medical treatment or pay improper referral fees.

But a serious debate also requires precision. Allegations involving a particular company should not define an entire industry. Commercial litigation investments should not be treated as interchangeable with funds provided to an injured consumer for household expenses. And criticism should be weighed against something frequently missing from the discussion: what consumers themselves say about why they use the product and whether it helped them.

ARC’s 2026 Consumer Legal Funding Survey provides that perspective. Across most survey questions, 576 consumers responded. The results portray a product being used during genuine household financial disruption, not as a mechanism for financing litigation.

Start With the Consumer, Not the Lawsuit

The typical need for Consumer Legal Funding begins after the event giving rise to the legal claim has already occurred. A person is injured, income is interrupted, and household obligations continue while an insurance claim or lawsuit remains unresolved.

According to ARC’s 2026 survey, 72.08% of respondents were not employed when they received Consumer Legal Funding. Among respondents addressing the reason, 65.72% said their lack of employment resulted from the circumstances that created the need for funding, such as an automobile accident.

The financial pressure was basic and immediate. 73.03% reported struggling with rent or mortgage payments, 61.30% with utilities and 60.07% with food. The survey did not depict consumers primarily seeking money for attorneys, experts, depositions or court costs. It depicted people trying to maintain ordinary household stability while a legal claim remained pending.

That distinction is now reflected in law. Kansas’s Transparency in Consumer Legal Funding Act defines Consumer Legal Funding as a non-recourse transaction involving a contingent right to potential proceeds and expressly states that the funds are used for household or personal expenses, not expenses directly related to prosecuting the legal claim. Utah’s 2026 law separately defines consumer maintenance funding and commercial maintenance funding.

That is not semantics. It is the difference between funding a person’s life during litigation and funding the litigation itself.

Wall Street, Securitization and the Underlying Consumer Transaction

Recent reporting has focused heavily on Consumer Legal Funding receivables being financed or securitized by institutional investors. That may sound far removed from the consumer who needs help paying rent, but two questions should be separated.

How a funding company obtains capital is one question. What rights the company obtains from the consumer is another.

Institutional capital does not by itself determine whether the consumer received clear disclosures, whether the transaction was non-recourse, whether the company can influence the claim, or whether the funds were used for household expenses. Those questions are governed by the contract and, increasingly, state law.

There is also an important caution about using broader allegations of personal-injury fraud to support criticism of Consumer Legal Funding. The New York Times article discussing Wall Street investment also referenced lawsuits brought by Uber alleging that personal-injury law firms and medical providers conspired to pursue exaggerated or fabricated injury claims. Yet just days before the Times article was published, a federal judge in New York dismissed Uber’s case against three personal-injury firms and related defendants. The court concluded that Uber had not plausibly alleged the RICO conspiracy it claimed and had not yet established the required injury. The dismissal does not establish that every underlying personal-injury claim was legitimate, and Uber has pursued similar litigation elsewhere. But it is an important reminder that allegations contained in a lawsuit are not the same as proven facts and should not be used to characterize Consumer Legal Funding generally.

Kansas law even distinguishes the Consumer Legal Funding company from banks, lenders, financing entities and special-purpose entities that finance the company or receive security interests in contracts. Securitization can be a legitimate subject for oversight, but it should not replace analysis of the actual consumer transaction.

The “Predatory Lending” and Cost Criticism

One of the most common criticisms is that Consumer Legal Funding is expensive. Articles frequently convert charges into annualized percentage rates, highlight compounding, or present examples in which the amount due grows substantially while a case remains unresolved.

Cost matters. Consumers should know what they are agreeing to pay, how charges accumulate and the maximum amount that can become due. But calling the transaction a high-interest “loan” can leave out an essential feature: Consumer Legal Funding is non-recourse.

Unlike conventional recourse credit, repayment depends on a recovery from the legal claim. Kansas law requires the contract to state that if there is no recovery, the consumer owes nothing to the funding company, absent fraud or a material contractual violation. California similarly defines Consumer Legal Funding as a non-recourse transaction involving the purchase of a contingent right to potential legal proceeds.

That does not make price irrelevant. It makes transparency more important.

Modern state regulation addresses that concern directly. Kansas requires contracts to clearly disclose the funded amount, one-time charges, how charges accrue, a payment schedule and the maximum total amount the consumer may be obligated to pay. It also provides a 10-business-day right to cancel. New York likewise requires clear contracts, disclosure of charges and maximum obligations, and a rescission period.

The constructive response to concerns about cost is not to pretend cost does not matter. It is to ensure consumers receive understandable information before entering the transaction and meaningful time to reconsider it.

Do Consumers Understand What They Are Signing?

Another recurring criticism is that financially stressed consumers may not understand the agreements they enter.

The ARC survey provides a direct consumer-reported counterpoint. 87.70% of respondents said they fully understood the terms of their contract, while 90.42% said they understood their financial obligations.

Those numbers should not be used to argue that disclosure requirements are unnecessary. They support the opposite conclusion: understandable contracts and meaningful disclosures should be the standard.

Kansas requires contracts to use common, everyday language and to be completely filled in before presentation to the consumer. New York similarly requires contracts to be clear and coherent and requires attorney acknowledgment that mandatory disclosures have been reviewed with the consumer. These protections are designed to reinforce informed decision-making rather than substitute for it.

The survey also provides another important measure of consumer experience: 90.70% said they would use Consumer Legal Funding again if they were in need, and 87.35% said they would recommend the company they worked with.

No survey means every consumer had a positive experience. But those results deserve to be part of any discussion that portrays consumers broadly as victims of a product they neither understand nor value.

Can a Funder Control a Settlement or Prolong Litigation?

Some of the most serious criticism suggests that funding companies may prevent settlements, pressure consumers to hold out for larger recoveries or interfere with an attorney’s professional judgment.

Consumer Legal Funding companies do not operate that way.

Kansas law states that a funding company has no role in deciding whether, when or for how much a legal claim is settled. It may seek information about the status of the claim, but it may not interfere with the independent professional judgment of the attorney.

That also addresses the broader claim that Consumer Legal Funding necessarily prolongs lawsuits. A consumer receiving funds for rent or utilities does not transfer control of the legal claim to the funding company. Settlement decisions remain with the consumer, advised by counsel.

At the same time, a consumer facing eviction, utility shutoff or difficulty buying groceries may experience intense pressure to resolve a claim quickly for reasons unrelated to its legal merits. Consumer Legal Funding is intended to provide household liquidity during that period, not dictate when a case settles.

Referrals and Individual Allegations

Recent media coverage has also highlighted allegations involving referrals and relationships among funders, lawyers and medical providers. These allegations warrant careful attention, but different financial arrangements should not be collapsed into a single category.

Modern laws also address referral relationships. Kansas prohibits funding companies from paying or accepting commissions, referral fees or other consideration involving attorneys, law firms and specified medical providers. It also restricts attorneys and their immediate family members from holding certain financial interests in a funding company serving the attorney’s consumer. California prohibits specified commissions and referral fees to attorneys and law firms. New York requires attorney acknowledgment concerning referral consideration.

If an individual company is alleged to have crossed those lines, the facts should be investigated and the applicable law enforced. But alleged misconduct is an argument for enforceable standards, not for treating prohibited conduct as the defining feature of Consumer Legal Funding.

Nuclear Verdicts, Social Inflation and the Conflation Problem

Insurance, trucking and tort-reform commentary increasingly connects “litigation funding” with nuclear verdicts, social inflation, higher insurance costs and a so-called tort tax.

The problem is that “litigation funding” can describe very different products.

Commercial Third-Party Litigation Financing may involve multimillion-dollar investments used to finance litigation expenses. Attorney portfolio financing and medical financing involve other arrangements. Consumer Legal Funding, by contrast, is a consumer-facing, non-recourse transaction designed to provide funds for personal and household needs.

Evidence concerning one category should not automatically be treated as evidence concerning another. The ARC survey reinforces the point: consumers reported struggling with housing, utilities and food. Kansas law expressly says Consumer Legal Funding does not include expenses directly related to prosecuting the claim, and Utah distinguishes consumer and commercial funding in statute.

If critics contend that Consumer Legal Funding itself causes nuclear verdicts or social inflation, the appropriate question is straightforward: what evidence specifically connects this consumer product to that outcome? Broad statistics about commercial litigation investment or aggregate tort costs do not answer that question by themselves.

The Claim That Consumer Legal Funding Is Unregulated

Another recurring impression is that Consumer Legal Funding operates in an unregulated environment. That description is increasingly difficult to square with the laws states have enacted.

Kansas requires clear contracts, extensive disclosures, a 10-business-day rescission period, a maximum repayment disclosure, attorney involvement, prohibitions on improper referrals, restrictions on funder control and enforcement authority.

New York’s Consumer Litigation Funding Act establishes regulation addressing disclosures, registration, attorney responsibilities, rescission, prohibited conduct and repayment. California’s Consumer Legal Funding Act regulates contract terms, referrals, disclosures and the period during which charges can accrue. Utah requires registration and disclosures, restricts certain attorney-provider relationships and expressly separates consumer from commercial funding.

Missouri has also enacted statutory provisions governing Consumer Legal Funding as part of its broader legislation addressing judicial proceedings.

These approaches are not identical, and reasonable policymakers can disagree about particular regulatory details. But collectively they demonstrate that there is a workable middle ground between no regulation and eliminating the product.

Consumer protection and consumer access do not have to be opposing goals.

Listen to the Consumers

The recent scrutiny of Consumer Legal Funding can serve a useful purpose if it produces better information, stronger standards and more precise distinctions.

Consumers should understand the cost. Contracts should clearly state what may be owed. Funding companies should not control settlements. Attorneys should remain independent. Improper referrals should be prohibited. Consumer funds should not be confused with money used to prosecute litigation. Allegations of misconduct should be investigated and violations enforced.

Those principles are increasingly embedded in state law.

But the debate should also include the people who use the product. ARC’s 2026 survey found consumers facing disrupted employment and difficulty paying for housing, utilities and food. It found high reported understanding of contracts and financial obligations. More than nine in ten respondents said they would use Consumer Legal Funding again if they needed it, and nearly nine in ten would recommend their funding company.

That does not eliminate every policy question. It does show that many consumers believe the product has value during a difficult period in their lives.

The better approach is not to ignore criticism or eliminate consumer choice. It is to address legitimate concerns with clear disclosures, rescission rights, attorney safeguards, prohibitions on interference, restrictions on improper financial relationships and effective enforcement, while preserving access to a non-recourse product designed to help consumers meet household needs while legal claims are pending.

Consumer Legal Funding: Funding Lives, Not Litigation.