Trending Now
  • Legal-Bay Expands Pre-Settlement Funding Services
Consumer Special Features

Why Consumer Legal Funding is Needed Today More Than Ever

April 11, 2022

Why Consumer Legal Funding is Needed Today More Than Ever

The following piece was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).  The opponents of consumer legal funding often say that consumers do not need this product. That they have several other options which they can tap into, and as such, are trying to put up barriers through the legislative process in limiting consumers’ ability to have access to this vital piece of financial stability. What is interesting is that the barriers that are being put up are designed so that consumers will not have access to this product at a time when they need it most. There are pieces of legislation being introduced across the country that would fully ban the product. Other pieces of legislation would make it cost-prohibitive for companies to offer the product, thereby banning the product and not making it available to those who need it most. A recent CNBC.com report it found the following:
  • 20% of American workers run out of money between checks
  • 68% do not have money set aside for emergencies
  • 51% have no emergency savings at all
  • 45% financially stressed
  • 83% of those with financial stress experience anxiety/56% depression
  • 33% have been declined for credit in the past 12 months/47% of Black workers
And, thanks to inflation, the average family will need $5,200 more this year than last just to meet basic needs. This is on top of the fact that the average personal injury case takes between 1 to 3 years to settle. So I ask again, with the need for this product greater than ever, why are the opponents of the industry being so aggressive in wanting to limit this product? It is to do one thing: force consumers to accept low-ball settlements so they can increase their bottom line. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. once said, “Equal justice under law…it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists…it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status.” Consumer legal funding gives consumers the ability to receive “Equal justice under law,” and get a fair and just settlement, as opposed to one that is forced upon them because of their financial circumstances.  

Consumer

View All
Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Expands Pre-Settlement Funding Services

By John Freund |

Legal-Bay announced an expansion of its legal funding services, aiming to offer clients more flexible options for pre-settlement funding. The move reflects rising demand from plaintiffs who need interim cash while cases progress and highlights the competitive dynamics in consumer legal funding.

According to the company, the initiative is intended to broaden availability of non-recourse advances and to streamline decisioning so applicants can access funds more predictably during litigation. Although the funder did not disclose detailed terms, the emphasis on flexibility suggests adjustments to how advances are sized and timed relative to case milestones, as well as potential enhancements to intake and support. For claimants, the changes could translate into more tailored funding paths during a period of financial strain.

A press release in PR Newswire states that Legal-Bay is expanding its legal funding services to provide clients with more flexible options for pre-settlement funding, signaling a renewed focus on access and responsiveness. The release characterizes the update as a client-centric step and reiterates the company’s commitment to supporting plaintiffs seeking bridge financing while their matters are pending. It does not enumerate product features, timelines or pricing, but it frames the initiative as an effort to meet a wider range of circumstances and case timelines.

For the litigation finance industry, expansions like this reinforce steady demand among cash-constrained plaintiffs and continued product iteration by consumer funders. If flexibility becomes a wider theme, expect tighter competition on approval speed, disclosures and service quality, alongside ongoing attention to compliance in states evaluating consumer legal funding rules.

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.