Trending Now
  • The Case for Nonlawyer-Owned Firms: Filling Consumer Justice Gaps Left by Big Law
  • Kansas Enacts Consumer Legal Funding Law, Offering a Bipartisan Regulatory Blueprint
Consumer

Let’s Set The Record Straight: Consumer Legal Funding is Not Litigation Finance

February 20, 2024

Let’s Set The Record Straight: Consumer Legal Funding is Not Litigation Finance

The following piece was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). Consumer Legal Funding, in its various forms, is pretty mundane. It covers living expenses, such as rent, food, clothes and keeping the lights on. It might even enable a family to provide Christmas or birthday gifts for their children. In every case, its sole purpose is to help individuals and families alleviate the cash-flow problems that arise in the wake of an accident or other tragic circumstances, while the individuals and families are seeking compensation for their situation. It has nothing to do with financing of the litigation. What is happing is that groups and individuals who are not taking the time and effort to know the differences between the two different products and are lumping them together. They are saying all transactions where a party to litigation receives any monetary resources from a non-party are considered Third Party-Litigation- Financing (TPLF). It paints a bleak picture of “foreign adversaries . . . undermining U.S. national economic and security interests through the infiltration of the American litigation system,” and it is the end of the free world as we know it. Consumer Legal Funding is nothing like that, it helps a consumer meet their financial obligations while their legal claim is making its way through the justice system. It does not pay for deposition cost. It does not pay for legal fees or expenses. Most of the time the funds go to help a consumer who has had a car accident bridge the financial gap, but there are other times where it goes to help a person who was wrongfully convicted and spent nearly two decades of their life in prison for a crime they did not commit. Consumer legal funding helped them get their life back in assisting with living expenses while they got the justice they so justly deserved. It helped a Police Officer pay to keep a roof over their family’s head while they had their day in court after being wrongfully discharged. Then the case of a single mother of three who was going back to college to make a better life for her children and had to move out of their home because of a toxic mold infestation. She used consumer legal funding to pay for a mobile home so she and her three children could live in a safe, toxic-free, environment while the situation was fixed. There is the case when a 16-year-old was made a quadriplegic due to medical negligence. The family had to modify their home to make accommodations to care for their loved one. Consumer legal funding was the only way they were able to take care of their teenager while the case made its way through the long legal system. Another was a woman was involved in a car accident and her teeth were shattered because of the accident. She used consumer legal funding to get a new set of teeth. She said, “it gave me my smile back”. Finally, there have been times where consumer legal funding was used to help pay for funeral expenses of a loved one that was tragically killed in an accident. Sadly, some families had no other means of taking their loved one to their final resting place if it had not been for consumer legal funding. But what is happening are those groups and individuals that do not take the time, or want to take the time, to learn what consumer legal funding really is. They hear terms like, “corrupting the legal system”, “leads to filing frivolous litigation” and the latest is “foreign governments are leading to international sabotage of our courts”. Then charge ahead saying “the sky is falling; the sky is falling”.
  • How does giving money to a single mother so she can have her children live in a toxic free environment lead to “international sabotage”?
  • How does allowing a person who spent nearly 2 decades of their life living in 48 square foot space corrupting the legal system?
  • How does allowing a person to get their smile back lead to frivolous litigation?
Litigation Financing is just that “financing of the litigation”. It is used to pay for lawyers. It is used to pay for depositions. It is used to pay for expert witnesses. It is used to pay court costs. None of which consumer legal funding does. In fact, in the legislation that we have promoted we specifically state the funds we provide to a consumer cannot be used for those purposes. Don’t be fooled by someone who is throwing out buzz words that make one think we are on the brink of judicial destruction by confusing Consumer Legal Funding with Litigation Financing. They both may be fruit. But one is an apple and one is an orange. Eric Schuller President Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding
Home

Consumer

View All
Consumer

Nonprofit Milestone Foundation Forms Advisory Council to Champion ‘Simple Interest’ Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

The Milestone Foundation, a western New York nonprofit that bills itself as the country's only organization dedicated to litigation funding for plaintiffs, has assembled a new advisory council to advance its mission and promote a funding model built on simple, non-compounding interest rates. The move marks an effort to position nonprofit funding as an alternative to the high-cost consumer products that have drawn regulatory scrutiny.

As reported by Law.com, the Buffalo-based foundation unveiled a multi-disciplinary council spanning the full litigation ecosystem, drawing together professionals from across the plaintiff, finance, and legal services landscape to guide its work and broaden its reach.

Founded in 2016 by John and Amy Bair, the Milestone Foundation operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and offers pre-settlement funding at 15% simple interest and post-settlement funding at 10% simple interest, with interest that never compounds. Like commercial consumer legal funding, its advances are non-recourse, meaning plaintiffs owe nothing if their case is unsuccessful. The foundation says it has provided more than $6 million in funding to over 900 plaintiffs in partnership with more than 320 law firms nationwide.

The council's formation comes amid intensifying debate over how consumer legal funding should be priced and regulated, exemplified by recent state legislation such as the Kansas Transparency in Consumer Legal Funding Act. By emphasizing transparent, simple-interest terms, the foundation is staking out a distinct position in a market often criticized for opaque and compounding charges, offering a model that supporters argue better aligns funding costs with plaintiffs' interests.

Consumer

Illinois Moves to Restrict Private Equity and Hedge Fund Control of Law Firms

By John Freund |

Illinois has joined a growing list of states moving to rein in non-lawyer ownership and control of law firms, advancing legislation that restricts the influence of private equity, hedge funds, and outside investors over legal practice. The measure reflects mounting concern that capital-driven ownership structures, closely related to litigation finance, could compromise attorney independence.

As reported by Crain's Chicago Business, House Bill 5487 places new limits on alternative business structures (ABS) and management services organizations (MSOs). The bill prohibits non-lawyers and outside investors from interfering with attorneys' professional judgment, accessing client records, hiring or firing lawyers, or charging fees tied to a firm's revenues or profits. Firms must also disclose any MSO or ABS arrangement to their clients.

Rather than banning the structures outright, the legislation significantly curtails non-lawyer involvement in firm operations and decision-making. The bill drew an unusual coalition, with both the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association and Illinois Defense Counsel backing it, alongside State Rep. Jay Hoffman and House Speaker Emanuel "Chris" Welch.

Supporters framed the measure as a response to rising private equity and venture capital involvement in civil litigation, drawing explicit parallels to third-party litigation funding arrangements that finance cases in exchange for a share of recoveries. Illinois follows California and Colorado in tightening ABS rules, amid criticism that Arizona's permissive regime has allowed non-lawyer-owned firms to manage mass tort caseloads while funded through attorney-fee percentages. The trend signals growing legislative resistance to investor control of the litigation process.

Consumer

The Case for Nonlawyer-Owned Firms: Filling Consumer Justice Gaps Left by Big Law

By John Freund |

As states such as Illinois move to restrict non-lawyer ownership of law firms, defenders of alternative business structures are pushing back, arguing that ABS models expand access to justice for consumers and small businesses that traditional firms have little economic incentive to serve. The debate goes to the heart of how technology and outside capital should reshape the delivery of legal services.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, Matt Freund, co-founder and chief executive of Arizona ABS-licensed firm ClaimsHero, contends that conventional firms lack the incentive to handle consumer protection and wage-theft claims where clients cannot afford hourly billing. ABS firms, he argues, combine legal expertise with technology to operate on contingency at scale, serving more than 100,000 clients at no cost to consumers through automated onboarding, eligibility screening, and client communication.

Freund counters concerns that non-lawyer ownership weakens oversight, asserting that ABS firms face stricter regulation than traditional practices. Entity-level licensing, he notes, creates firm-wide accountability, with semi-annual audits, biennial renewals, compliance-attorney requirements, and the risk of firm-wide suspension for ethics violations. He cites a 2025 Stanford Law School study finding that 85% of Arizona ABS firms target individual consumers and that there was "de minimis evidence of consumer harm."

To address skeptics, Freund recommends entity-level regulation, feedback mechanisms, ownership transparency, and governance safeguards for attorney independence as a template for other states. The argument offers a direct counterpoint to the restrictive measures gaining traction in statehouses across the country.