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  

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.