Trending Now
  • Independence Day Op-Ed Frames Consumer Legal Funding as the Freedom to Pursue Justice
Consumer

Independence Day Op-Ed Frames Consumer Legal Funding as the Freedom to Pursue Justice

July 1, 2026

Independence Day Op-Ed Frames Consumer Legal Funding as the Freedom to Pursue Justice

In an Independence Day editorial, the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) argues that meaningful freedom includes the ability of injured Americans to pursue their legal claims without financial desperation forcing them into unfair settlements. The piece positions consumer legal funding as a practical tool for keeping the outcome of a case tied to its facts rather than to a plaintiff’s bank balance.

Writing in the National Law Review, ARC president Eric Schuller contends that “justice delayed can quickly become justice denied when mounting bills force individuals into decisions they otherwise would never make.” Defendants, he argues, understand this dynamic and can use the length of the civil justice process to pressure vulnerable plaintiffs into accepting less than their claims are worth.

Schuller distinguishes consumer legal funding from commercial litigation finance and traditional lending. These are typically small, non-recourse advances — often $3,000 to $5,000 — used for everyday necessities such as rent, groceries, and medical bills while a claim proceeds. Because the funding is non-recourse, a consumer who loses the underlying case owes nothing. ARC’s guiding principle, he writes, is “Funding Lives, Not Litigation.”

The editorial also makes the case for responsible oversight, endorsing disclosure requirements, attorney acknowledgment, and prohibitions on funders influencing litigation strategy — safeguards intended to protect consumers while preserving their access to the tool.

Consumer

View All
Consumer

In Jackson Hospital Bankruptcy, Funders and Lawyers Sit Ahead of the Hospital in Settlement Waterfall

A court filing in the bankruptcy of Montgomery-based Jackson Hospital reveals that, under a joint prosecution and funding agreement, litigation funders and lawyers would be paid ahead of the hospital itself if its lawsuit against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama produces a settlement. The arrangement offers an unusually clear public window into how a funded litigation recovery can be distributed.

As reported by Alabama Daily News, Jackson Hospital filed for bankruptcy and sued Blue Cross, arguing that only higher insurance reimbursement rates can keep the facility open. Its current operations are financed through a debtor-in-possession loan from Jackson Investment Group (JIG).

According to the agreement, any settlement proceeds would follow a strict waterfall: first, JIG's legal expenses; second, repayment of JIG's investment, including accrued and unpaid interest; and only then a split of what remains, with 70% directed to Jackson Hospital Corporation for its obligations to JIG and 30% to a nonprofit of JIG's choosing. The hospital itself effectively ranks third in the payment hierarchy.

The structure highlights a recurring tension in litigation finance: a courtroom victory does not always translate into the outcome a funded party most needs — here, the survival of the hospital. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Hawkins has scheduled a status hearing for June 30, leaving the ultimate distribution, and the hospital's future, unresolved.

Consumer

As New York’s Litigation Lending Law Takes Effect, a Nonprofit Funder Pushes an Alternative Model

As New York's new consumer litigation lending law takes effect, a Buffalo-based nonprofit is positioning itself as an alternative to the traditional, for-profit funding model the legislation is designed to rein in. The Milestone Foundation, backed by a newly formed advisory council and a client base of roughly 1,000, says its approach is built around reshaping how plaintiffs access funds while their cases are pending.

As reported by Law.com, the foundation is seeking to differentiate itself from conventional consumer litigation lenders, which advance cash to plaintiffs in personal injury and other cases in exchange for a share of any eventual recovery. Critics of that model have long argued that compounding fees can consume an outsized portion of a plaintiff's award, a concern that helped drive New York's move toward tighter regulation.

The timing is notable. New York's law arrives amid a broader national reckoning over consumer legal funding, with several states weighing disclosure requirements, rate caps, and other guardrails on the practice. By advancing a nonprofit alternative as the regulatory landscape shifts, the Milestone Foundation is testing whether a mission-driven structure can coexist with — and compete against — established commercial funders.

The development underscores how regulation and market innovation are increasingly moving in tandem within consumer legal funding. For plaintiffs, lawyers, and funders alike, New York's experience may offer an early indication of how alternative models perform once stricter rules are in place.

Consumer

North Carolina Becomes First State to Ban Third-Party Litigation Funding

North Carolina has become the first state in the nation to enact an outright ban on third-party litigation funding, after Governor Josh Stein signed House Bill 315 into law. The measure makes it unlawful for outside investors to finance civil lawsuits in exchange for a financial interest tied to the outcome of the case, marking a significant departure from the disclosure-and-transparency approach adopted by other states.

As reported by WWAY-TV3, the law defines litigation investment as providing money for the fees, costs, or expenses of pending or potential civil proceedings in return for compensation contingent on the result. The statute authorizes the state attorney general to seek injunctions and civil penalties against violators, though certain activities are carved out from the prohibition.

The bill drew broad legislative support, passing the House unanimously and clearing the Senate by a 45-1 margin. Business groups, including the North Carolina Chamber and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, backed the measure, arguing it strengthens the state's legal and business climate. Critics counter that third-party funding can expand access to the courts for parties who otherwise lack the resources to pursue meritorious claims.

The development represents a notable escalation in the regulatory debate over litigation finance in the United States. While states such as Ohio and others have advanced transparency requirements, North Carolina's outright prohibition sets a new precedent that funders, defense interests, and legislators in other jurisdictions are likely to watch closely.