Trending Now
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  
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Consumer

View All
Consumer

Let’s Get the Definition Right: Litigation Financing is Not Consumer Legal Funding

By Eric Schuller |

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

Across the country, in both state capitols and Washington, D.C., policymakers and courts are giving increasing attention to the question of “litigation financing” and whether disclosure requirements should apply. At the heart of this debate is a push for transparency, who is funding lawsuits, what contracts exist, and what parties are behind those agreements.

While the intent is understandable, the challenge lies in the lack of a consistent and precise definition of what “litigation financing” actually is. Too often, broad definitions sweep in products and services that were never intended to fall under that category, most notably Consumer Legal Funding. This misclassification has the potential to cause confusion in the law and, more importantly, harm consumers who rely on these funds to stay afloat financially while pursuing justice through the legal system.

As Aristotle observed, “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” Without careful definitions, good policy becomes impossible.

The Distinction Between Litigation Financing and Consumer Legal Funding

The difference between litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding is both simple and significant.

Litigation financing, sometimes referred to as third-party litigation funding (TPLF), typically involves an outside party providing monies to attorneys or to plaintiffs’ firms to pay for the costs of bringing or defending lawsuits. These funds are used to pay legal fees, expert witnesses, discovery expenses, and other litigation-related costs. The funders, in turn, often seek a portion of the litigation’s proceeds if the case is successful. In short, this type of financing directly supports the litigation itself.

Consumer Legal Funding, on the other hand, serves an entirely different purpose. In these transactions, monies are provided directly to consumers, not attorneys, for personal use while their legal claim is pending. These funds are not used to pay legal fees or case expenses. Instead, consumers typically use them for necessities such as rent, mortgage payments, groceries, utilities, childcare, or car payments. Funding companies are not influencing the litigation but rather ensuring that individuals have the financial stability to see their case through to its conclusion without being forced into a premature settlement simply because they cannot afford to wait.

This is why treating Consumer Legal Funding as though it were litigation financing is both inaccurate and potentially harmful.

Legislative and Judicial Recognition of the Difference

Several states have already recognized and codified this critical distinction. States including Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, and Kansas have examined disclosure requirements for litigation financing and have made it clear that Consumer Legal Funding is not subject to those laws. Their statutes expressly define litigation financing in a way that excludes consumer-focused products.

Courts have also weighed in. In Arizona, for example, the state’s rules of civil procedure expressly carve out Consumer Legal Funding, recognizing that these transactions are unrelated to litigation financing and should not be treated as such. Likewise, when the Texas Supreme Court considered proposed rules surrounding litigation financing, the Court ultimately declined to proceed. While no new rule was adopted, the process made clear that Consumer Legal Funding was not intended to be part of the conversation.

These examples demonstrate that policymakers and jurists, when carefully considering the issue, have consistently drawn a line between products that finance lawsuits and those that help consumers meet basic living expenses.

Why the Distinction Matters

The consequences of failing to make this distinction are not abstract, they are very real for consumers. If disclosure statutes or procedural rules are written too broadly, they risk sweeping in Consumer Legal Funding.

Disclosure requirements are aimed at uncovering potential conflicts of interest, undue influence over litigation strategy, or foreign investment in lawsuits. None of these concerns are relevant to Consumer Legal Funding, which provides personal financial support and, by statute in many states, explicitly forbids funders from controlling litigation decisions.

As Albert Einstein noted, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” When the difference between litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding is explained simply, the distinction becomes obvious. One finances lawsuits, the other helps consumers survive.

A Clear Request to Policymakers

For these reasons, we respectfully urge legislators and courts, when drafting legislation or procedural rules regarding “litigation financing,” to clearly define the scope of what is being regulated. If the issue is the funding of litigation, then the measures should address the financing of litigation itself, not the consumer who is simply trying to pay everyday bills and keep a roof over their head while awaiting the resolution of a legal claim.

Clarity in definitions is not a minor issue; it is essential to ensure that the right problems are addressed with the right solutions. Broad, vague definitions risk collateral damage, undermining access to justice and harming the very individuals the legal system is meant to protect. By contrast, carefully tailored definitions ensure transparency in litigation financing while preserving critical financial tools for consumers.

Finally

The debate around litigation financing disclosure is an important one, but it must be approached with precision. Litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding are two fundamentally different products that serve very different purposes. One finances lawsuits, the other helps individuals survive while waiting for justice.

It is important to begin with a clear definition. As Mark Twain wisely noted, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter, ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” If legislators and courts wish to regulate litigation financing, they must do so with precision, ensuring clarity in the law while also preserving the essential role that Consumer Legal Funding plays in supporting individuals and families during some of the most difficult periods of their lives.

Consumer

Critics Argue Litigation Funding May Lift Malpractice Insurance Premiums

By John Freund |
Healthcare malpractice insurers are re-evaluating how third-party litigation funding could alter claim dynamics, with potential knock‑on effects for premiums paid by physicians, hospitals, and allied providers. An article in South Florida Hospital News and Healthcare Report points out that for providers already facing staffing pressures and inflation in medical costs, even modest premium shifts can ripple through budgets. Patients may also feel indirect effects if coverage affordability influences provider supply, practice patterns, or defensive medicine. While clearly antagonistic towards the industry, the piece outlines how prolonged discovery, additional expert testimony, and higher damages demands can flow through to insurers’ loss ratios and reserving assumptions, which ultimately inform premium filings. It also notes that providers could see higher deductibles or retentions as carriers adjust terms, while some plaintiffs may gain greater access to counsel and case development resources. For litigation funders, med-mal remains a critical niche. Watch for state-level disclosure rules, court practices around admissibility of funding, and evolving ethical guidance—factors that will shape capital flows into healthcare disputes and the trajectory of malpractice premiums over the next few renewal cycles.
Consumer

Consumer Legal Funding: Support for People, Not Control Over Litigation

By Eric Schuller |

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

Summary: Consumer legal funding (CLF) is a non-recourse financial product that helps people meet essential living expenses while their legal claims are pending. It does not finance lawsuits, dictate strategy, or control settlements. In fact, every state that has enacted CLF statutes has explicitly banned providers from influencing the litigation process.

1) What Consumer Legal Funding Is

CLF provides modest, non-recourse financial assistance, typically a few thousand dollars to individuals awaiting resolution of a claim. These funds are used for rent, food, childcare, or car payments, not for legal fees or trial costs. If the case is lost, the consumer owes nothing.

CLF is not an investment in lawsuits or law firms, it is an investment in the consumer. 

2) Why Control Is Banned

The attorney–client relationship is central to the justice system. CLF statutes protect it by prohibiting funders from interfering. Common provisions include:
- No control over litigation strategy or settlement.
- No right to select attorneys or direct discovery.
- No settlement vetoes. Only the client, guided by counsel, makes those decisions.
- No fee-sharing or referral payments.
- No practice of law. Funders cannot provide legal advice.

These bans are spelled out in statutes across the country. Violating them exposes providers to penalties, voided contracts, and regulatory action.

3) Non-Recourse Structure Removes Leverage

Control requires leverage, but CLF offers none. Because repayment is only due if the consumer recovers, providers cannot demand monthly payments or seize assets. They do not fund litigation costs, so they cannot threaten to cut off discovery or expert testimony. The consumer retains ownership of the claim and full authority over all decisions.

4) Ethical Safeguards Reinforce Statutes

Even without statutory language, attorney ethics rules bar outside influence:
- Lawyers must exercise independent judgment and loyalty to clients.
- Confidentiality rules prevent improper information-sharing.
- No fee-sharing with non-lawyers ensures funders cannot 'buy' influence.
- The decision to settle rests solely with the client, not third parties.

Together, these rules and statutes guarantee that litigation decisions remain with client and counsel.

5) Market Realities: Why Control Makes No Sense

CLF contracts are relatively small, especially compared to the cost of litigation. They are designed to cover groceries and rent, not discovery budgets or jury consultants. Trying to control a case would be both unlawful and economically irrational.

Because repayment is contingent, funders want efficient and fair resolutions, not drawn-out litigation. Their interests align with consumers and counsel: achieving just outcomes at reasonable speed.

6) Addressing Misconceptions

- Myth: Funders push for bigger settlements.
  Fact: They cannot veto settlements. Dragging out cases only increases risk and cost.

- Myth: Funders get privileged information.
  Fact: Attorneys control disclosures; privilege remains intact. Access to limited case status updates does not confer control.

- Myth: CLF pressure consumers to reject fair settlements.
  Fact: Statutes forbid interference. And because advances are non-recourse, consumers are not personally liable beyond case proceeds.

- Myth: CLF is an assignment of the claim.
  Fact: Consumers remain the sole parties in interest. Providers have only a contingent repayment right.

7) How Statutes Work in Practice

States that regulate CLF typically require:
1. Plain-language contracts advising consumers to consult counsel.
2. Cooling-off periods for rescission.
3. Bright-line bans on control over strategy or settlement.
4. No fee-sharing or referral payments.
5. Regulatory oversight through registration or examination.
6. Civil remedies for violations.

This model balances access to financial stability with ironclad protections for litigation independence.

8) The Consumer’s Perspective

CLF does not alter case strategy; it alters life circumstances. Without it, many injured individuals face eviction, repossession, or the inability to pay basic bills. That pressure can lead to ‘forced settlements.' By covering essentials, CLF allows clients to consider their lawyer’s advice based on legal merits, not immediate financial desperation.

9) Compliance in Contracts

Standard CLF contracts reflect the law:
- Providers have no authority over legal decisions.
- Attorneys owe duties solely to clients.
- Terms granting control are void and unenforceable.

National providers adopt these clauses uniformly, even in states without explicit statutes, creating a strong industry baseline.

10) Enforcement and Oversight

Regulators can discipline providers, void unlawful terms, or impose penalties. Attorneys risk ethics sanctions if they allow third-party interference. Consumers may also have remedies under statute. These enforcement tools make attempted control both illegal and unprofitable.

11) Policy Rationale

Legislatures designed CLF frameworks to achieve two goals:
1. Preserve litigation integrity by keeping decisions between client and counsel.
2. Expand access to justice by giving consumers breathing room while claims proceed.

The explicit statutory bans on control ensure both goals are met.

Conclusion

Consumer legal funding is a support tool for people, not a lever over lawsuits. Statutes across the country make this crystal clear: CLF providers cannot influence litigation strategy, cannot veto settlements, and cannot practice law. The product is non-recourse, small in scale, and tightly regulated.

For consumers, CLF offers stability during difficult times. For the justice system, it preserves the attorney–client relationship and the independence of litigation. The result is access to justice without interference—because control of litigation is not only absent, but also expressly banned by law.