Trending Now
Consumer

Understanding Pre-Settlement Funding: A Resource for Plaintiffs Facing Long Legal Battles

By Harry Moran |
February 25, 2025

Understanding Pre-Settlement Funding: A Resource for Plaintiffs Facing Long Legal Battles

Rockpoint Legal Funding has released a new educational overview on the role of pre-settlement funding for individuals involved in personal injury and other civil lawsuits. As court dockets swell and case timelines extend, plaintiffs often encounter mounting financial pressures that can influence their legal decisions. This overview examines the mechanics of pre-settlement funding, the considerations for deciding whether it is an appropriate option, and the broader context of litigation finance in the United States.

Pre-settlement funding—also known as legal funding or lawsuit advances—is a financial arrangement in which a provider offers immediate funds to plaintiffs who have an active legal claim. The advance is typically “non-recourse,” which means that the plaintiff is only obligated to repay if the underlying case results in a monetary settlement or award. This structure aims to relieve short-term economic stress, such as covering medical bills or everyday living costs, without imposing the risk of personal liability if the case does not succeed.

Why Litigation Timelines Can Be Lengthy

In many jurisdictions, personal injury and other civil claims progress through multiple stages. The initial filing, discovery period, settlement negotiations, and potential trial can each introduce procedural delays. Moreover, defense counsel or insurance companies may seek extensions or engage in protracted negotiations, especially if the case is complex or involves substantial damages. These drawn-out timelines can place significant strain on plaintiffs who are juggling medical appointments, lost wages, or other unexpected expenses stemming from the incident in question.

How Non-Recourse Funding Operates

Non-recourse funding arrangements differ from traditional loans in two key ways. First, plaintiffs do not make monthly payments during the lawsuit’s duration. Second, if the case concludes without a settlement or court award, the plaintiff typically owes nothing. However, if there is a successful outcome, the provider recovers its advance from the proceeds, plus any agreed-upon fees or charges. Because repayment depends on the lawsuit’s success, funding companies evaluate the viability of a claim by reviewing documentation such as medical records, police reports, and legal filings. This vetting process helps determine both eligibility and the potential amount of funding offered.

Considerations for Plaintiffs

While pre-settlement funding can offer financial breathing room, it is not a universal solution for every litigant. Plaintiffs are advised to consult closely with their attorneys before deciding to move forward with an advance. An attorney can provide guidance on whether anticipated settlement amounts reasonably justify the costs associated with funding. Additionally, plaintiffs should take time to review any contract terms carefully, paying particular attention to fee structures and potential caps on interest. Regulatory requirements for transparency vary from state to state, and consumer protection advocates often encourage individuals to ask prospective funders for itemized disclosures that outline how expenses and interest accumulate over time.

Balancing Immediate Needs with Long-Term Outcomes

For many plaintiffs, the main appeal of pre-settlement funding lies in the ability to cover urgent expenses without feeling pressured to accept a premature or undervalued settlement. Financial stress can sometimes overshadow the pursuit of a fair legal resolution. Having access to funds to pay rent, medical bills, and utility costs can enable individuals to focus more effectively on recovering from injuries and collaborating with their legal teams. At the same time, the additional fees tied to funding must be weighed against the potential difference a plaintiff might receive if they negotiate a higher settlement by waiting. Striking a balance between meeting immediate needs and preserving future gains is a critical part of the decision-making process.

Regulatory Landscape and Industry Best Practices

The legal funding industry is subject to varying degrees of oversight. Several states have enacted or proposed regulations to ensure consumer protections. In some jurisdictions, legislators have mandated clear and conspicuous disclosures regarding interest rates, fee schedules, and any other costs that might be included in the repayment obligation. These efforts aim to safeguard plaintiffs from overextending themselves financially or unknowingly entering into agreements with unfavorable terms. Reputable legal funding companies generally support transparent industry standards, seeing them as essential for maintaining trust and helping plaintiffs fully understand the implications of the agreements they sign.

Potential Impact on the Legal Process

Plaintiffs considering pre-settlement funding often wonder whether accessing an advance will change how negotiations proceed. While the presence of funding does not directly alter the defendant’s or insurance company’s approach, plaintiffs who relieve their short-term financial hardships may feel less pressure to settle immediately. This dynamic can sometimes allow parties to conduct more thorough investigations, secure additional expert opinions, or wait for crucial evidence to come to light. Nonetheless, case outcomes depend on numerous factors—including liability assessments, the strength of the evidence, and judicial proceedings—and not solely on whether the plaintiff has opted for a funding advance.

Addressing Myths and Misconceptions

Despite growing awareness, misconceptions about lawsuit funding persist. One common myth is that plaintiffs give up control of their case when they secure an advance. In practice, a reputable funding provider does not direct case strategy or negotiations; plaintiffs and their attorneys maintain full authority over legal decisions. Another misconception is that high rates inevitably accompany all pre-settlement advances. While some companies may impose significant fees, others strive for more balanced terms. Conducting comparative research and consulting third-party resources can help plaintiffs identify funding options that align with their specific needs.

Informing Plaintiffs and Attorneys

Through its resource materials and ongoing educational initiatives, Rockpoint Legal Funding aims to clarify how pre-settlement advances fit into the broader legal landscape. Attorneys can benefit by understanding the various funding options available to clients, enabling them to offer well-rounded advice. Meanwhile, plaintiffs gain insight into navigating what can be a confusing world of financial products and services. Informed decision-making involves not only estimating the value of a legal claim but also realistically appraising personal financial requirements and the time it may take to resolve a case.

About Rockpoint Legal Funding

Rockpoint Legal Funding provides non-recourse cash advances to plaintiffs in personal injury and other civil cases. The company’s primary goal is to help individuals facing extended litigation address pressing financial concerns so they can pursue a fair legal outcome. Through transparent practices, Rockpoint endeavors to equip both plaintiffs and their attorneys with clear information, enabling them to decide whether a funding advance is appropriate for their circumstances.

For more information about Rockpoint Legal Funding, visit rockpointlegalfunding.com.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

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.