Trending Now
  • Pravati Capital Establishes Coalition to Advance Responsible Litigation Funding Regulation Across U.S. Following Arizona Law’s Passage

Rockpoint Legal Funding Report Reveals How Long Civil Lawsuits Drag On–State by State

By Harry Moran |

Rockpoint Legal Funding Report Reveals How Long Civil Lawsuits Drag On–State by State

Rockpoint Legal Funding today released The 2025 Lawsuit-Duration Index, a first-of-its-kind analysis that ranks U.S. states by the average time it takes a routine civil lawsuit to reach resolution. Drawing on thousands of line-items from trial-court dashboards, annual judiciary reports, and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) case-flow datasets, the study shines a light on the calendar realities behind America’s crowded dockets.

States Where Civil Cases Last the Longest

  1. New York — ≈ 30 months
    Why so long? Dense commercial caseloads, heavy discovery, and a “deferred note-of-issue” system that gives parties up to a year to certify readiness can stretch the calendar. Even though New York’s Differentiated Case Management (DCM) rule sets a target of 15 months from filing to judgment, backlogs in the Supreme Court’s civil terms routinely push cases to double that figure.
  2. California — ≈ 24 months
    Unlimited-jurisdiction civil matters must, by statewide standard, wrap up within two years, yet fiscal-year dashboards show that fewer than 80 percent of cases hit the 24-month mark, with the remainder spilling into a third year. Factors include large jury pools, complex consumer statutes, and pandemic-era continuances that have not fully cleared. 
  3. Florida — ≈ 20 months
    Circuit-court dashboards reveal that barely half of ordinary negligence and contract suits close inside 18 months. Although the Supreme Court adopted aggressive case-management rules in 2023, trial-level clearance rates are still catching up, and hurricane-related insurance litigation continues to clog calendars. 
  4. Illinois — ≈ 18 months
    Cook County alone processes more than 250 000 civil filings a year. Medical-malpractice caps were struck down a decade ago, and lengthy expert-witness phases keep many cases open well past the 1½-year horizon set by the state’s Time-Standards order. Tort hotspots in Madison and St. Clair Counties skew the statewide mean upward. (Source: Illinois Courts Statistical Summary, 2024).
  5. Texas — ≈ 14 months
    A statewide “Age of Cases Disposed” audit for fiscal year 2023 shows that 58 percent of district-court civil cases are resolved inside a year; another 12 percent finish by 18 months; the remainder stretch longer, producing a weighted average of roughly 430 days. Urban districts with multicounty venues (Harris, Dallas, Bexar) post the slowest numbers

National context: Across 19 benchmark jurisdictions surveyed by the NCSC, the mean time to disposition for civil matters was 43 weeks—just under eleven months—highlighting how outlier states pull the national average upward.

Why Do Timelines Vary So Widely?

  • Caseload Mix – States dominated by high-stakes personal-injury, medical-malpractice, or complex commercial cases run longer discovery schedules than states whose dockets lean toward simpler contract or small-claims matters.
  • Procedural Rules – Broad discovery allowances (New York CPLR, California CCP) and generous continuance policies add months. Fast-track “rocket-docket” rules, used in parts of Texas and Virginia, compress schedules.
  • Judicial Resources – Trial-level judge-to-population ratios range from 3.9 per 100 000 residents in California to 2.6 in Texas; shortages translate directly into fuller calendars and later trial dates.
  • Backlog Hangover – Pandemic pauses left hundreds of thousands of jury-demand cases unresolved; courts that pivoted to virtual hearings (Florida, Texas) cleared inventory faster than states that waited for in-person sessions.
  • Local Legal Culture – In some venues, strategic delay is a negotiation tactic. High defense-side insurance penetration can encourage “wait it out” settlement strategies, particularly in auto-injury suits.

Economic and Human Costs

  • Direct Expense – The U.S. tort system cost $443 billion in 2022—about 2.1 percent of GDP—according to the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. Longer case cycles increase those costs by boosting attorney hours, expert-witness fees, and carrying charges.
  • Business Impact – Protracted litigation discourages expansion in plaintiff-friendly states and inflates liability-insurance premiums, costs ultimately passed to consumers.
  • Personal Hardship – Plaintiffs waiting years for compensation often face medical bills, lost wages, or repair costs they cannot defer. Delays disproportionately harm low-income claimants who lack emergency savings.

How Legal Funding Fits In

“Justice delayed shouldn’t be justice denied,” said Maz Ghorban, President of Rockpoint Legal Funding. “Our non-recourse advances give injured people the breathing room to see their cases through rather than settling early for pennies on the dollar.”

Because Rockpoint is only repaid if a case resolves favorably, the company’s interests are aligned with plaintiffs pursuing full, fair value—even in jurisdictions where court calendars run two or three years past filing. Rockpoint underwrites claims nationwide but sees the highest funding volumes in the very states that top the duration list, confirming the link between long case cycles and financial strain.

Methodology

Rockpoint analysts aggregated more than 4.2 million disposition records from:

  • The National Center for State Courts case-flow dashboards (43-state sample, FY 2023).
  • Individual judiciary statistical reports (California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, New York).
  • County-level “age-of-case” spreadsheets for large urban districts.

Cases involving small-claims, probate, or family-law matters were excluded to isolate routine civil tort and contract litigation. Mean and median days were calculated, then rounded to the nearest month for readability.

Looking Ahead

State supreme courts in Florida and Texas have adopted stricter case-management orders requiring active judicial oversight at the 90- and 180-day marks; California lawmakers are weighing pilot “civil fast-track” programs modeled on federal Rule 26(f). If fully implemented, those reforms could shave six to nine months off average durations over the next three years.

For more information on how Rockpoint Legal Funding can help plaintiffs bridge the financial gap while their cases wind through the courts, visit rockpointlegalfunding.com.

Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Announcements

View All

Pravati Capital Establishes Coalition to Advance Responsible Litigation Funding Regulation Across U.S. Following Arizona Law’s Passage

By John Freund |

Arizona’s Senate Bill 1215 (SB1215) will become law on Jan. 1, 2026, marking a significant milestone in the state’s role as a national leader in advancing access to justice through litigation funding, positioning Arizona as a model for other states considering similar measures. Arizona’s legislation reflects a broader movement in states such as California and Georgia, where lawmakers are weighing the benefits of litigation finance as a way to level the playing field for plaintiffs facing deep-pocketed adversaries.

To help advance these efforts, Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Pravati Capital, one of the oldest litigation finance firms in the U.S. and supporter of the bill alongside the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the broader legal community, has formed a coalition of litigation funders, attorneys and policy advocates committed to ensuring that states pass responsible regulation that protects plaintiffs. 

The bill’s final passage underscores a consensus reached after months of negotiations and reflects bipartisan compromise, according to Alexander Chucri, founder and CEO of Pravati Capital. SB1215 ensures funding remains a viable option for plaintiffs seeking to stand on equal footing with well-capitalized corporate opponents; it requires greater transparency of legal proceedings and prohibits funding and influence by foreign countries or entities of concern as defined in the legislation. 

“Arizona’s leadership in the area of litigation funding sends a powerful signal nationally,” said Senate Majority Whip Frank Carroll, a key supporter of the legislation. “This legislation is the product of constructive negotiation that demonstrates what’s possible when all sides work toward the shared goal of preserving access to justice.”

“It closes the door on bad actors while ensuring responsible litigation finance firms can continue to help plaintiffs pursue meritorious claims,” said Chucri. “At Pravati, we welcome this as part of an ongoing dialogue.”

SB1215 took effect on September 26, 90 days after the close of the legislative session, and, with a delayed effective date, will become law on January 1. Among key provisions, SB1215:

·       Protects the integrity of cases by restricting involvement by foreign countries or entities of concern as defined in the legislation, ensuring litigation funding remains aligned with U.S. legal and ethical standards.

·       Preserves innovation in legal services, reaffirming Arizona’s pioneering role in allowing alternative business structures (ABS), law firms that permit non-lawyers decision-making authority, to expand access to legal services by partnering with litigation funding firms.   

·       Balances regulation, affirming safeguards such as prohibitions on funders controlling litigation, while maintaining transparency. 

Chucri added, “Pravati has always believed our mission — ‘to befriend, help and protect’ — is best achieved through cooperation and a willingness to educate stakeholders. We will continue to engage constructively in conversations to advance fair, responsible access to justice.” 

About Pravati Capital

Established in 2013, Pravati Capital, LLC is among the oldest litigation finance firms in the U.S., delivering a proven track record as an equalizing force in court and a unique and uncorrelated asset class to investors. Founded by Alexander Chucri, a visionary in developing the industry's first pioneering model of litigation finance in 2003, Pravati Capital brings together a seasoned team with deep experience across law, finance and successful entrepreneurial ventures. The Scottsdale, Ariz.-based firm delivers strategic capital solutions for attorneys and law firms, helps plaintiffs gain access to justice through financial support, and offers accredited investors an attractive asset class designed to perform independently of traditional markets. Pravati’s mission is its namesake: to befriend, help and protect. For more information, visit PravatiCapital.com

Burford Issues YPF Litigation Update Ahead of Pivotal Appeal Hearing

By John Freund |

Burford Capital has released a detailed investor update ahead of a key appellate hearing in its high-profile litigation against Argentina over the renationalization of YPF.

According to Burford’s press release, oral arguments in the consolidated appeal—referred to as the “Main Appeal”—are scheduled for October 29, 2025, before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The hearing will address Argentina’s challenge to a $16 billion judgment issued in 2023, as well as cross-appeals concerning the dismissal of YPF as a defendant. The release outlines the appellate process and timelines in granular detail, noting that a ruling could come months—or even a year—after the hearing, with additional delays possible if rehearing or Supreme Court review is pursued.

Burford also clarified the distinction between the Main Appeal and a separate appeal involving a turnover order directing Argentina to deliver YPF shares to satisfy the judgment. That order has been stayed pending resolution, with briefing set to conclude by December 12, 2025. Meanwhile, discovery enforcement is proceeding in the District Court, where Argentina has been ordered to produce documents—including internal and “off-channel” communications—amid accusations of delay tactics.

International enforcement efforts continue in at least eight jurisdictions, including the UK, France, and Brazil, where Argentina is contesting recognition of the US judgment.

The update serves both as a procedural roadmap and a cautionary note: Burford stresses the unpredictable nature of sovereign litigation and acknowledges the possibility of substantial delays, setbacks, or settlements at reduced values.

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding Applauds Governor Newsom for Signing AB 931

By John Freund |

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding Applauds Governor Newsom for Signing AB 931, the California Consumer Legal Funding Act

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) expressed its deep appreciation to Governor Gavin Newsom for signing Assembly Bill 931 -- The California Consumer Legal Funding Act -- into law. Authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D–San Jose, 25th District), this landmark legislation establishes thoughtful and comprehensive regulation of Consumer Legal Funding in California—ensuring consumer protection, transparency, and access to financial stability while legal claims move through the judicial process.

The law, which takes effect January 1, 2026, provides consumers with much-needed financial support during the often lengthy resolution of their legal claims, helping them cover essential living expenses such as rent, mortgage payments, and utilities.

“This legislation represents a major step forward for California consumers,” said Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. “AB 931 strikes the right balance between protecting consumers and preserving access to a financial product that helps individuals stay afloat while they await justice. Consumer Legal Funding truly is about funding lives, not litigation.”
Key Consumer Protections Under AB 931

The California Consumer Legal Funding Act includes robust safeguards that prohibit funding companies from engaging in improper practices and mandate full transparency for consumers.

The Act Prohibits Consumer Legal Funding Companies from:

• Offering or colluding to provide funding as an inducement for a consumer to terminate their attorney and hire another.
• Colluding with or assisting an attorney in bringing fabricated or bad-faith claims.
• Paying or offering referral fees, commissions, or other forms of compensation to attorneys or law firms for consumer referrals.
• Accepting referral fees or other compensation from attorneys or law firms.
• Exercising any control or influence over the conduct or resolution of a legal claim.
• Referring consumers to specific attorneys or law firms (except via a bar association referral service).

The Act Requires Consumer Legal Funding Companies to:

• Provide clear, written contracts stating:
• The amount of funds provided to the consumer.
• A full itemization of any one-time charges.
• The maximum total amount remaining, including all fees and charges.
• A clear explanation of how and when charges accrue.
• A payment schedule showing all amounts due every 180 days, ensuring consumers understand their maximum financial obligation from the outset.
• Offer consumers a five-business-day right to cancel without penalty.
• Maintain no role in deciding whether, when, or for how much a legal claim is settled.

With AB 931, California joins a growing list of states that have enacted clear and fair regulation recognizing Consumer Legal Funding as a non-recourse, consumer-centered financial service—distinct from litigation financing and designed to help individuals meet their household needs while pursuing justice.

“We commend Assemblymember Kalra for his leadership and Governor Newsom for signing this important legislation,” said Schuller. “This act ensures that Californians who need temporary financial relief during their legal journey can do so safely, transparently, and responsibly.”

About the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC)

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) is a national association representing companies that provide Consumer Legal Funding, non-recourse financial assistance that helps consumers meet essential expenses while awaiting the resolution of a legal claim. ARC advocates for fair regulation, transparency, and consumer choice across the United States.