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.

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Consumer

View All
Consumer

Legal Bay Pre-Settlement Funding Announces Registration in New States

By John Freund |

Legal Bay LLC, a leading national pre-settlement funding company, has announced compliance with new regulatory guidelines in California and Georgia effective January 1. The company is now registered and accepting applications in both states as part of its ongoing commitment to transparency, disclosure, and regulatory compliance within the legal funding industry. The announcement comes amid increased scrutiny of lawsuit loans and settlement funding arrangements by courts and lawmakers nationwide.

According to PR Newswire, recent legislation in California and Georgia has highlighted concerns surrounding disclosure practices, contract clarity, and consumer understanding of legal funding agreements. Both states have clarified that litigation finance is not a loan but a non-recourse agreement. Legal Bay maintains internal compliance protocols designed to ensure transparency, consumer protection, and adherence to applicable laws in every state where it operates.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, emphasized that "legal funding is not a one-size-fits-all product," noting that state laws change and compliance expectations shift. He stated that the regulatory activity in 2025 has been the most significant in the industry in quite some time. With New York and California both passing bills enabling legal funding in their states, Janish expects more states to follow this national trend of validating legal funding.

Legal Bay through its funding division, LB Capital, has successfully registered to do business in California, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, and Oklahoma in 2025. The company's compliance team continues to work on registration in additional states in 2026 where state legislation mandates it. Legal Bay provides non-recourse pre-settlement funding to plaintiffs involved in personal injury, medical malpractice, wrongful termination, and other cases, with clients repaying funds only if they win their case.

Consumer

Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding

By John Freund |

Consumer legal funding has increasingly become a focal point for legislative scrutiny, with some policymakers framing new regulations as necessary consumer protections. A recent commentary argues that one such proposal—imposing joint and several liability on consumer legal funding companies—may do more harm than good, ultimately restricting access to justice for the very consumers these laws are meant to protect.

At its core, the debate centers on whether funders should be held jointly and severally liable alongside plaintiffs for litigation outcomes or related conduct. Proponents of these measures suggest that attaching liability to funders would deter abusive practices and align incentives across the litigation ecosystem. Critics, however, warn that this approach misunderstands the role of consumer legal funding and risks destabilizing a market that many injured or financially vulnerable plaintiffs rely upon to pursue meritorious claims.

An article in National Law Review states that joint and several liability provisions would dramatically alter the risk profile for consumer legal funding companies, forcing them to assume exposure far beyond their contractual role as non-recourse financiers. The piece argues that such liability would likely lead to higher costs of capital, reduced availability of funding, or a wholesale exit of providers from certain jurisdictions. In turn, consumers who lack the means to sustain themselves financially during prolonged litigation could be left without viable alternatives, effectively pressuring them into premature or undervalued settlements.

The article also challenges the notion that consumer legal funding requires punitive regulation, pointing to existing disclosure requirements, contract oversight, and state-level consumer protection laws that already govern the industry. By layering on joint liability, legislators may unintentionally undermine these frameworks and introduce uncertainty that benefits defendants more than consumers. The author further notes that similar liability concepts are generally absent from other forms of non-recourse financing, raising questions about why legal funding is being singled out.

Consumer

What Happens to Consumers When Consumer Legal Funding Disappears

By Eric Schuller |

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

The Real-World Consequences of Over-Regulation and Misclassification

State lawmakers across the country are increasingly focused on how to regulate third-party financial activity connected to litigation. That attention is appropriate and necessary. However, when Consumer Legal Funding (CLF) is misclassified as a loan, conflicted with commercial litigation finance, or subjected to regulatory structures designed for fundamentally different financial products, the consequences fall not on providers, but on consumers who need it the most.

Consumer Legal Funding, Funding Lives, Not Litigation, exists to help individuals with pending legal claims meet basic household needs while their cases move through the legal system. These consumers are often recovering from serious injuries, unable to work, and facing mounting financial pressure. When CLF disappears due to over-regulation or misclassification, those consumers do not suddenly become financially secure. Instead, they are pushed into worse, more dangerous alternatives, or forced into decisions that undermine both their legal rights and their long-term financial stability.

Who Uses Consumer Legal Funding and Why

Consumers who turn to CLF are not seeking to finance their litigation. They are seeking financial stability. On average, CLF transactions range between $3,000 and $5,000. These monies are used for rent, mortgage payments, utilities, groceries, childcare, transportation, and medical co-pay. In many cases, it is differences between maintaining housing or facing eviction, between keeping a car or losing the ability to get to medical appointments or work.

CLF is non-recourse. If the consumer does not recover in their legal claim, they owe nothing. That structure places all financial risk on the provider, not the consumer. It is precisely this risk allocation that distinguishes CLF from loans and traditional credit products, and it is why courts and legislatures in numerous states have recognized that CLF is not a loan.

When lawmakers impose loan-based frameworks on CLF, including usury caps, amortization requirements, or repayment obligations disconnected from case outcomes, the product becomes economically impossible to offer. The result is not a cheaper product. The result is no product at all.

The Immediate Impact of CLF Disappearing

When CLF exits a state market, the effects are immediate and measurable.

First, consumer access disappears. Providers cannot operate under regulatory structures that ignore the non-recourse nature of the product. Capital exits the market, and consumers lose an option that previously helped them remain financially afloat during litigation.

Second, consumers are forced into inferior alternatives. Without CLF, injured individuals frequently turn to credit cards, payday lenders, installment loans, or borrowing from friends and family. These options often carry guaranteed repayment obligations, compounding interest, collection risk, and damage to credit. Unlike CLF, these products do not adjust based on whether the consumer recovers anything in their legal claim.

Third, financial pressure forces premature settlements. When consumers cannot meet basic living expenses, they are more likely to accept early, undervalued settlements simply to survive. This undermines the fairness of the civil justice system and benefits defendants and insurers, not injured parties or the courts.

Misclassification Harms the Most Vulnerable Consumers

The consumers most harmed by the elimination of CLF are those with the fewest alternatives. These are individuals with limited savings, limited access to traditional credit, and limited ability to absorb income disruption following an injury.

Ironically, regulations intended to protect consumers often end up harming precisely the consumers they sought to help. When CLF is treated as a loan, the regulatory burden drives responsible providers out of the market while doing nothing to improve consumer outcomes. Consumers do not gain safer options. They lose transparent, regulated, non-recourse funding and are pushed toward products with higher risk and fewer protections.

This is not hypothetical. States that have enacted overly restrictive frameworks or applied inappropriate rate caps have seen providers exit, access shrink, and consumer choice vanish. The lesson is clear. When regulation ignores economic reality, consumers pay the price.

CLF Does Not Drive Litigation or Verdict Inflation

A common concern raised in policy debates is whether CLF encourages litigation, prolongs cases, or contributes to so-called nuclear verdicts. The evidence does not support these claims.

CLF is accessed after a legal claim already exists. It does not finance attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation strategy. Providers have no control over legal decisions, settlement timing, or trial outcomes. Their only interest is whether a consumer recovers at all.

Moreover, the small size of typical CLF transactions makes it implausible that they influence case strategy or verdict size. A $3,000 to $5,000 transaction used to pay rent or utilities does not drive multi-million-dollar litigation outcomes. Conflating CLF with commercial litigation finance obscures these realities and leads to policy mistakes.

A Better Path Forward for Policymakers

Legislators can protect consumers without eliminating CLF. States that have enacted thoughtful CLF statutes have focused on disclosure, transparency, contract clarity, and consumer choice, rather than imposing loan-based rate structures that do not fit a non-recourse product.

Effective regulation acknowledges three core principles. First, CLF is not a loan and should not be regulated as one. Second, consumers benefit from access to a regulated, transparent product rather than being pushed into worse alternatives. Third, clear rules provide stability for both consumers and providers.

When policymakers get this balance right, consumers retain access to a product that helps them weather one of the most difficult periods of their lives without distorting the justice system or creating unintended harm.

Conclusion

The issue confronting lawmakers is not whether Consumer Legal Funding should be subject to oversight, but whether existing and future frameworks accurately reflect how the product operates and whom it serves. When CLF is swept into regulatory regimes designed for loans or commercial litigation finance, the result is not improved consumer protection. It is the quiet elimination of a non-recourse option that many injured consumers rely on to remain financially stable while their legal claims are resolved.

Careful, informed policymaking requires recognizing that Consumer Legal Funding is distinct, limited in size, non-recourse, and consumer-facing. Regulation that acknowledges those characteristics preserves transparency and accountability without stripping consumers of choice or forcing them into riskier financial alternatives. When rules are tailored to economic reality rather than broad assumptions, consumers are better protected, markets remain stable, and the civil justice system functions as intended.