Trending Now
Commercial Consumer

Mayfair Legal Launches Wildfire Support Program for Plaintiffs

By John Freund |
June 12, 2025

Mayfair Legal Launches Wildfire Support Program for Plaintiffs

Mayfair Legal Funding has unveiled a new initiative aimed at aiding wildfire victims in Los Angeles and Maui by providing pre-settlement advances tailored to individuals pursuing legal claims related to recent wildfire disasters. The program seeks to ease the financial burden on plaintiffs during the lengthy litigation process, allowing them to cover essential living expenses and medical costs without being forced into early or inadequate settlements.

An article in OpenPR reports that Mayfair’s program will provide wildfire-impacted claimants with cash advances while their cases proceed through court or settlement negotiations. The funding is non-recourse, meaning recipients are only obligated to repay the advance if their case is successful. This offering is particularly timely in light of the mounting legal battles related to utility-sparked wildfires in California and the catastrophic 2023 fires in Maui, both of which have left thousands seeking legal recourse and financial recovery.

Mayfair emphasized that this initiative aligns with its mission to ensure access to justice regardless of a claimant’s financial status. “We believe that no one should have to choose between basic survival and pursuing a rightful claim,” said a spokesperson for the funder, noting that the company’s underwriting process is designed for speed and minimal paperwork.

With natural disasters on the rise and litigation timelines stretching longer than ever, targeted pre-settlement funding like this may become an increasingly vital tool for plaintiffs. The wildfire-specific program from Mayfair underscores a growing trend of funders developing specialized products for mass torts and disaster-related litigation—an area likely to see heightened investor and regulatory attention in the years ahead.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Esquire Financial’s Litigation-Related Loans Climb to $1.22 Billion

Esquire Financial Holdings continues to build its bank around the legal industry, with commercial litigation-related lending now the clear centerpiece of its loan book rather than a sideline. The firm's strategy leans into a niche most banks avoid: financing law firms and litigation-related credit at scale.

According to Esquire Financial Holdings, the company's commercial litigation-related loans increased $386.9 million, or 46.3%, to $1.22 billion as of March 31, 2026. That single segment now accounts for roughly two-thirds of Esquire's $1.82 billion total loan portfolio.

The litigation book grew a net $44 million during the quarter — about 15% on an annualized basis — at a yield of approximately 9%, well above conventional commercial lending. Total assets rose 23.9% to $2.42 billion, and the bank's net interest margin reached 6.04%, reflecting how the litigation-related concentration lifts overall returns.

The figures underscore a deliberate design rather than opportunistic growth: a specialized commercial bank concentrating on law-firm and litigation-related credit, funded in large part by legal-industry deposits. Net income for the quarter was $12.2 million, or $1.40 per diluted share. As litigation finance draws regulatory scrutiny elsewhere, Esquire's model shows how a chartered bank is embedding itself in the sector's plumbing.

Commercial

Ohio Advances Litigation Funding Registration and Foreign-Funding Ban

Ohio is moving to join the growing roster of states regulating third-party litigation funding, advancing a bill that pairs registration and disclosure requirements with an outright prohibition on foreign funders.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, House Bill 105 — passed by the Senate and sent to Governor Mike DeWine — would require both commercial and consumer funders to register with the state and disclose their funding agreements to the attorney general after cases resolve. Sponsors have described the sector as an "opaque," billion-dollar industry operating largely out of view.

The measure would bar funders from influencing how lawsuits are handled or settled, and would prohibit funding agreements with individuals or entities domiciled outside the United States. It draws on the National Conference of Insurance Legislators' "Transparency in Third Party Litigation Financing Model Act," creating a uniform registration and oversight framework under the attorney general.

Unlike North Carolina's first-in-the-nation outright ban enacted last month, Ohio's approach centers on transparency and foreign-influence guardrails rather than blanket prohibition — a model other states weighing regulation are likely to study closely. For the defense bar, mandatory disclosure of funding agreements would offer a clearer view of the financial interests behind a claim, potentially informing settlement posture and trial strategy.

Commercial

Op-Ed Warns Congress’s Litigation Finance Bills Threaten Privacy and Free Speech

A new commentary argues that pending federal legislation to regulate third-party litigation funding could do more constitutional harm than substantive reform, raising First Amendment and privacy concerns for funded parties and their backers.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, legal scholar John Shu points to two efforts on Capitol Hill: a bill from Senator Thom Tillis and Representative Kevin Hern that would impose a 41% tax on litigation finance recoveries, and a separate disclosure bill from Representative Darrell Issa that would require funders and financiers to be publicly identified.

Shu contends that mandatory disclosure would expose confidential backers to "doxxing, harassment, retaliation, or worse," and that the tax-enforcement mechanism would force plaintiffs' lawyers to identify private funders to the IRS. He points to the agency's history of controversy over the "targeting of the Tea Party and other conservative groups" as reason for caution about compelled disclosure to federal authorities.

He grounds the constitutional argument in Supreme Court precedent — including NAACP v. Alabama (1958) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021) — decisions that shielded confidential donor and membership lists from compelled disclosure. The piece lands as a notable counterweight to the transparency push gaining momentum in statehouses and Congress, reframing the debate around civil liberties rather than courtroom economics.