Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Jason Levine, Partner at Foley & Lardner LLP
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Consumer Special Features

Litigation Financing is an Investment in Democracy

May 19, 2022

Litigation Financing is an Investment in Democracy

The following is a contributed piece from Rory Donadio, CEO of www.tribecalawsuitloans.com There are many ways to look at what those of us in litigation funding do. Is it a pre-settlement cash advance or a non-recourse loan? Is it truly lending, or is it an investment? But far more important than what we call our work, is what we actually do. According to a September 2021 Bloomberg Law Litigation Finance Survey, 88% of the responding attorneys believe that litigation finance enables better access to justice. Without justice for all, democracy fails. So, I submit that litigation financing is an investment in democracy. Since the inception of this industry, back when it was ripe for opportunity and unregulated like the wild west, I have been excited and driven to help real people in their search for justice. We help level the playing field between large, powerful companies and financially damaged individuals who have been harmed. A pre-settlement loan robs the insurance company of the plaintiff’s economic desperation they are so eager to weaponize as they strive to protect their clients from accountability. With the litigation funding we provide, ordinary Americans can do the extraordinary — hold the most powerful entities in our society accountable for their actions. What could be more fundamental to democracy than this? We are investing in democracy. Believe it, and never let it go.

Advice to Others in Litigation Financing

When Tribeca advises newcomers to the industry, I tell them to diversify their portfolios to invest in a wide range of cases. I encourage them to prioritize relationships with everyone — with clients, lawyers, the mailman, the person checking your groceries at your local store, that stranger who looks like they need a friend, and of course, other funders and brokers. Most importantly, I advise them never to lose sight of the genuine good you can do with litigation funding. Never forget that we are helping real people in need — that we are investing in democracy. Let me share a story of one of our clients, who I am now proud to call my friend. Derrick Hamilton’s case is one — of many — that clarified how litigation financing is indeed investing in democracy.

When Democracy Falters

In 2011, Derrick Hamilton was released from prison after serving 21 years for a murder he did not commit. He was fully exonerated in 2015. In this country, we say it is better to let ten guilty men go free rather than convict a single innocent man. Yet our judicial system snatched more than two decades of this man’s life. Our legal system failed him. As bad as his wrongful imprisonment was, the way he was treated after his release was almost worse. He was released from prison into poverty with no support structure. And when he sued the state for compensation for the wrongful imprisonment — you know what happened next — the state’s attorneys stalled. Despite knowing the state wrongfully locked this man away from his family, his friends, and his life, knowing the state owed him compensation for this vast injustice, the attorneys representing New York and Connecticut still dragged out his compensation negotiations for six years. Think about that for a moment. There were no complex issues to analyze or painstaking research required. Nevertheless, more than two decades of this man’s life were stolen — a fact recognized by all sides. They delayed his compensation — for six entire years — because they could. They hoped that his financial straits would force him to accept far less money than he was owed, just to make the pain stop. It nearly worked. Fortunately, we were able to help fund his wrongful incarceration lawsuit. I gained so much more than a business deal from the experience.

All Money is Alike

If you are desperate and cannot scrape the funds together to keep a roof over your family’s heads, or provide necessary medical care, then every dollar is precious. But when you have enough money to cover all your needs and wants, then every dollar is just like any other. Forever chasing money simply adds up to bigger stacks of paper. But when we invest in people, we create opportunities to flourish. Unfortunately, sometimes these opportunities are squandered. But through passion, hard work, and faith in God, some people turn their chance to thrive into a way to lift up those around them. When this happens, you know your investment has paid rich dividends.

Investing in People Reaps Enormous Dividends

Supporting cases like Derrick’s crystallized my sense of the work we do. I recognized that, in a small way, I was investing in him and our democracy by helping him continue his fight for justice. I initially helped one man. Then, with the pre-settlement funding we provided, Derrick opened a business of his own, and invested in someone else’s restaurant. He netted the money he needed to hire other exonorees to work with him, pursuing justice for others still behind bars. He did this all while continuing to fight for the compensation he deserved. When I look at all Derrick accomplished with the lawsuit loan I provided — just a cash advance on the money he was owed — I am both humbled and in awe. I helped Derrick Hamilton, but he, in turn, helped his family start a business and another company grow. He has employed other men in his very same circumstance, others unjustly imprisoned, and together, they help even more people. Every dollar is a duplicate of another, but a single life that is improved reaches far and wide, bettering the lives of others. Whether someone we help plants a garden, raises a child, or creates opportunities for others our society has left behind, it is a beautiful thing. And each of these lives is singular, unrepeatable, and utterly unique. Calculating the way one life can enhance so many others, strengthening our society and making our democracy work just a little bit better is much messier than standard accounting, and more challenging. The math is harder, but it’s so much more rewarding!

Building a Team and Moving Forward

More advice for others starting out in litigation financing — surround yourself with quality people who share your vision. After 28 years in the industry, I now have an incredible staff that does just that. They are open-minded, caring, and hardworking. They dig into the ways legal funding invests in people and strengthens our democracy. They never shy away from the messy accounting involved. What’s different for me today, is that I am not afraid of admitting that I have made a mistake, I can own it, and I can learn from it. When I was one of the litigation financing industry’s pioneers back in the 90s, there were no guardrails or guidelines. In many ways, we were inventing the industry as we worked. Together we helped a lot of people, but I also made plenty of mistakes. I lost deals and made loans I should have walked away from, but these mistakes helped to form the man and the investor I have become today. My faith has allowed me the comfort of knowing there is enough for my storehouse. I don’t have to have every deal. I credit self-reflection, passion, work ethic, and my relationship with God as the secrets to my success. In addition, the willingness to make mistakes and to learn from them — to grow — is as essential to success in this field as in any other. Each case is so different from the next; there’s plenty of trial and error involved. So when mistakes happen, the truth is better revealed because you see the problem more clearly. The goal should not be to avoid failure but to learn from it and move on. My mantra has become, “Yesterday’s denials are today’s approvals.” I find my passion for litigation financing redoubled. I feel honored to be in a position to invest in our democracy’s justice system.

Where is the Litigation Financing Industry Headed?

As long as we have positive regulation in the market, the litigation financing industry will continue to grow. We must be proactive with legislation to keep companies honest and keep the industry available to those who need it. I see legal funding as a genuinely noble business, where we use our money to help vulnerable people in distress meet their needs and secure the compensation they deserve. Sadly, some see nothing but an opportunity to victimize these people further and take quick profits with no regard to the damage they inflict. Our industry needs sensible regulations that do the following:
  • Rein in predatory lending practices
  • Allow consumers to get the help they need
  • Protect the litigation funder’s investment in the case
Currently, there are bills in Kentucky, North Carolina, New Jersey, Colorado, and New York that we are watching closely. At this time, most appear to be positive legislation that can benefit our industry and our clients. Too often, legislators don’t understand our industry, or they paint the good and bad actors with the same brush, so it’s vital to be proactive as legislation is written and debated. Litigation financing can serve a diversity of clients and needs. Sometimes, it helps individuals pay their rent while settlement negotiations drag on. Other times, it can provide a litigator with the funds they need to hire an expert witness or get an expensive analysis completed that can make their case. It can also be used for operating capital for commercial entities during litigation to cover their costs. Get creative in the way you look at legal funding, and you’ll always find people who will benefit from your support. I am the CEO of Tribeca Lawsuit Loans. We fund a wide diversity of personal injury and mass tort litigation. The cases I am closely watching in 2022 include: Lastly, wrongful imprisonment cases will forever be near and dear to my heart. Accordingly, I’ll be fascinated to see how the class action lawsuit against Hertz — for its disgraceful practice of falsely accusing customers of rental vehicle theft—shakes out. The author of this article is Rory Donadio. Rory can be reached by email: rory.donadio@tribecacapllc.com  

Consumer

View All
Consumer

Legal Bay Pre-Settlement Funding Announces Registration in New States

By John Freund |

Legal Bay LLC, a leading national pre-settlement funding company, has announced compliance with new regulatory guidelines in California and Georgia effective January 1. The company is now registered and accepting applications in both states as part of its ongoing commitment to transparency, disclosure, and regulatory compliance within the legal funding industry. The announcement comes amid increased scrutiny of lawsuit loans and settlement funding arrangements by courts and lawmakers nationwide.

According to PR Newswire, recent legislation in California and Georgia has highlighted concerns surrounding disclosure practices, contract clarity, and consumer understanding of legal funding agreements. Both states have clarified that litigation finance is not a loan but a non-recourse agreement. Legal Bay maintains internal compliance protocols designed to ensure transparency, consumer protection, and adherence to applicable laws in every state where it operates.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, emphasized that "legal funding is not a one-size-fits-all product," noting that state laws change and compliance expectations shift. He stated that the regulatory activity in 2025 has been the most significant in the industry in quite some time. With New York and California both passing bills enabling legal funding in their states, Janish expects more states to follow this national trend of validating legal funding.

Legal Bay through its funding division, LB Capital, has successfully registered to do business in California, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, and Oklahoma in 2025. The company's compliance team continues to work on registration in additional states in 2026 where state legislation mandates it. Legal Bay provides non-recourse pre-settlement funding to plaintiffs involved in personal injury, medical malpractice, wrongful termination, and other cases, with clients repaying funds only if they win their case.

Consumer

Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding

By John Freund |

Consumer legal funding has increasingly become a focal point for legislative scrutiny, with some policymakers framing new regulations as necessary consumer protections. A recent commentary argues that one such proposal—imposing joint and several liability on consumer legal funding companies—may do more harm than good, ultimately restricting access to justice for the very consumers these laws are meant to protect.

At its core, the debate centers on whether funders should be held jointly and severally liable alongside plaintiffs for litigation outcomes or related conduct. Proponents of these measures suggest that attaching liability to funders would deter abusive practices and align incentives across the litigation ecosystem. Critics, however, warn that this approach misunderstands the role of consumer legal funding and risks destabilizing a market that many injured or financially vulnerable plaintiffs rely upon to pursue meritorious claims.

An article in National Law Review states that joint and several liability provisions would dramatically alter the risk profile for consumer legal funding companies, forcing them to assume exposure far beyond their contractual role as non-recourse financiers. The piece argues that such liability would likely lead to higher costs of capital, reduced availability of funding, or a wholesale exit of providers from certain jurisdictions. In turn, consumers who lack the means to sustain themselves financially during prolonged litigation could be left without viable alternatives, effectively pressuring them into premature or undervalued settlements.

The article also challenges the notion that consumer legal funding requires punitive regulation, pointing to existing disclosure requirements, contract oversight, and state-level consumer protection laws that already govern the industry. By layering on joint liability, legislators may unintentionally undermine these frameworks and introduce uncertainty that benefits defendants more than consumers. The author further notes that similar liability concepts are generally absent from other forms of non-recourse financing, raising questions about why legal funding is being singled out.

Consumer

What Happens to Consumers When Consumer Legal Funding Disappears

By Eric Schuller |

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

The Real-World Consequences of Over-Regulation and Misclassification

State lawmakers across the country are increasingly focused on how to regulate third-party financial activity connected to litigation. That attention is appropriate and necessary. However, when Consumer Legal Funding (CLF) is misclassified as a loan, conflicted with commercial litigation finance, or subjected to regulatory structures designed for fundamentally different financial products, the consequences fall not on providers, but on consumers who need it the most.

Consumer Legal Funding, Funding Lives, Not Litigation, exists to help individuals with pending legal claims meet basic household needs while their cases move through the legal system. These consumers are often recovering from serious injuries, unable to work, and facing mounting financial pressure. When CLF disappears due to over-regulation or misclassification, those consumers do not suddenly become financially secure. Instead, they are pushed into worse, more dangerous alternatives, or forced into decisions that undermine both their legal rights and their long-term financial stability.

Who Uses Consumer Legal Funding and Why

Consumers who turn to CLF are not seeking to finance their litigation. They are seeking financial stability. On average, CLF transactions range between $3,000 and $5,000. These monies are used for rent, mortgage payments, utilities, groceries, childcare, transportation, and medical co-pay. In many cases, it is differences between maintaining housing or facing eviction, between keeping a car or losing the ability to get to medical appointments or work.

CLF is non-recourse. If the consumer does not recover in their legal claim, they owe nothing. That structure places all financial risk on the provider, not the consumer. It is precisely this risk allocation that distinguishes CLF from loans and traditional credit products, and it is why courts and legislatures in numerous states have recognized that CLF is not a loan.

When lawmakers impose loan-based frameworks on CLF, including usury caps, amortization requirements, or repayment obligations disconnected from case outcomes, the product becomes economically impossible to offer. The result is not a cheaper product. The result is no product at all.

The Immediate Impact of CLF Disappearing

When CLF exits a state market, the effects are immediate and measurable.

First, consumer access disappears. Providers cannot operate under regulatory structures that ignore the non-recourse nature of the product. Capital exits the market, and consumers lose an option that previously helped them remain financially afloat during litigation.

Second, consumers are forced into inferior alternatives. Without CLF, injured individuals frequently turn to credit cards, payday lenders, installment loans, or borrowing from friends and family. These options often carry guaranteed repayment obligations, compounding interest, collection risk, and damage to credit. Unlike CLF, these products do not adjust based on whether the consumer recovers anything in their legal claim.

Third, financial pressure forces premature settlements. When consumers cannot meet basic living expenses, they are more likely to accept early, undervalued settlements simply to survive. This undermines the fairness of the civil justice system and benefits defendants and insurers, not injured parties or the courts.

Misclassification Harms the Most Vulnerable Consumers

The consumers most harmed by the elimination of CLF are those with the fewest alternatives. These are individuals with limited savings, limited access to traditional credit, and limited ability to absorb income disruption following an injury.

Ironically, regulations intended to protect consumers often end up harming precisely the consumers they sought to help. When CLF is treated as a loan, the regulatory burden drives responsible providers out of the market while doing nothing to improve consumer outcomes. Consumers do not gain safer options. They lose transparent, regulated, non-recourse funding and are pushed toward products with higher risk and fewer protections.

This is not hypothetical. States that have enacted overly restrictive frameworks or applied inappropriate rate caps have seen providers exit, access shrink, and consumer choice vanish. The lesson is clear. When regulation ignores economic reality, consumers pay the price.

CLF Does Not Drive Litigation or Verdict Inflation

A common concern raised in policy debates is whether CLF encourages litigation, prolongs cases, or contributes to so-called nuclear verdicts. The evidence does not support these claims.

CLF is accessed after a legal claim already exists. It does not finance attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation strategy. Providers have no control over legal decisions, settlement timing, or trial outcomes. Their only interest is whether a consumer recovers at all.

Moreover, the small size of typical CLF transactions makes it implausible that they influence case strategy or verdict size. A $3,000 to $5,000 transaction used to pay rent or utilities does not drive multi-million-dollar litigation outcomes. Conflating CLF with commercial litigation finance obscures these realities and leads to policy mistakes.

A Better Path Forward for Policymakers

Legislators can protect consumers without eliminating CLF. States that have enacted thoughtful CLF statutes have focused on disclosure, transparency, contract clarity, and consumer choice, rather than imposing loan-based rate structures that do not fit a non-recourse product.

Effective regulation acknowledges three core principles. First, CLF is not a loan and should not be regulated as one. Second, consumers benefit from access to a regulated, transparent product rather than being pushed into worse alternatives. Third, clear rules provide stability for both consumers and providers.

When policymakers get this balance right, consumers retain access to a product that helps them weather one of the most difficult periods of their lives without distorting the justice system or creating unintended harm.

Conclusion

The issue confronting lawmakers is not whether Consumer Legal Funding should be subject to oversight, but whether existing and future frameworks accurately reflect how the product operates and whom it serves. When CLF is swept into regulatory regimes designed for loans or commercial litigation finance, the result is not improved consumer protection. It is the quiet elimination of a non-recourse option that many injured consumers rely on to remain financially stable while their legal claims are resolved.

Careful, informed policymaking requires recognizing that Consumer Legal Funding is distinct, limited in size, non-recourse, and consumer-facing. Regulation that acknowledges those characteristics preserves transparency and accountability without stripping consumers of choice or forcing them into riskier financial alternatives. When rules are tailored to economic reality rather than broad assumptions, consumers are better protected, markets remain stable, and the civil justice system functions as intended.