By Rachel McCarthy of The Milestone Foundation and Jeremy Alters of ClaimAngel
For plaintiffs navigating the civil justice system, time is rarely on their side.
An accident or tragedy can upend every part of a person’s life at once. Medical bills accumulate, rent is always due, and living expenses do not pause simply because someone may be hurt and out of work. Yet litigation often can take months or years to resolve, and that financial pressure can force plaintiffs into impossible choices: accept an unfair settlement now or keep waiting for a more just outcome while their situation grows more precarious.
In many cases, the only option available is litigation financing — cash advances protected by a future settlement. But what most plaintiffs don’t realize when they sign up is how costly that lifeline can be. Funders often hide behind the defense that they are taking on high risks, given that the funding is “non-recourse,” thus plaintiffs bear no responsibility to pay back if they lose. In reality, annual percentage rates in this market can start around 36% and climb as high as 200%, far exceeding virtually any conventional borrowing option. Compounding interest, opaque contract terms, and complex repayment structures mean that even when plaintiffs win, a significant share of their settlement will be diverted to funding companies — not because they lost, but because staying in the fight required borrowing on terms that were never fully explained to them.
This is a civil justice problem hiding inside a financial one.
A Market Built on Opacity
The consumer litigation funding industry did not set out to harm plaintiffs. At its best, it exists to solve a real and serious problem: injured people need financial support while their cases move forward, insurance companies deliberately delay and the legal system moves slowly. Without some form of bridge financing, many legitimate claims never reach resolution. Plaintiffs are forced to settle for far less than they deserve or abandon their cases entirely.
But good intentions and good outcomes are not the same thing. And for far too long, the litigation funding market has operated without the transparency, standardization, or accountability that plaintiffs deserve.
In most of the market, pricing is not disclosed upfront clearly and transparently. Rates compound in ways that are difficult for non-experts to calculate or anticipate. Contracts are written to benefit funders, not borrowers. And because plaintiffs typically arrive at funding companies at moments of acute financial stress — after an accident, a medical crisis, or the sudden loss of income — they are not in a position to negotiate, comparison shop, or fully evaluate what they are agreeing to.
The result is a marketplace where the most vulnerable participants consistently get the worst terms. Where financial desperation, rather than the merits of a case, can determine how much of a settlement a plaintiff actually keeps. And where the very tool that was meant to help plaintiffs pursue justice can end up undermining the value of the justice they achieve.
The Problem Goes Deeper Than Bad Actors
It would be convenient if the solution were simply to identify and remove predatory lenders. But the structural issues in consumer litigation funding go beyond any single company or practice.
The market as a whole lacks consistent pricing standards. There are no industry-wide ethics framework governing how funders interact with plaintiffs. Attorneys who want to send clients to funding sources face their own ethical gray areas, with limited guidance on what constitutes responsible advocacy versus arrangements that cross the line.
Many plaintiffs don’t even realize the full impact of these arrangements until they receive their settlement and see how much they owe. In this way, the funding industry can be just as harmful as a situation where plaintiffs have no access to funding at all.
The absence of standards doesn’t just harm plaintiffs directly. It also distorts the broader litigation environment. An ethical litigation system cannot function this way. One’s existing financial situation should never determine whether someone can fully pursue justice.
What Ethical Funding Actually Looks Like
There are organizations working to change this and demonstrate that a better model is possible.
At The Milestone Foundation, our work is rooted in a simple premise: financial hardship should never prevent someone from fully pursuing justice. As the nation’s only nonprofit consumer litigation funding provider, we were founded in 2016 specifically to fill the gap left by a predatory market — to offer plaintiffs suffering catastrophic harm a funding option that does not exploit the very vulnerability that brought them to us.
In practice, that means rates that are simple interest, never compounding — 15% for pre-settlement funding and 10% for post-settlement funding. It means advances designed to cover essential living expenses: housing, food, transportation, utilities. It means funding that is always non-recourse — if a case does not resolve, the plaintiff owes nothing. Since our founding, we have provided more than $7 million in nonprofit funding to over 1,000 plaintiffs, in partnership with more than 330 law firms nationwide.
But alas, a nonprofit model alone cannot reform an entire market.
The Milestone Foundation strategically allied with ClaimAngel because they take a different but complementary approach. As a tech-enabled marketplace, ClaimAngel brings standardization and transparency to the plaintiff funding space — requiring every funder on its platform to operate at a disclosed 27.8% simple annual rate with a two-time repayment cap. ClaimAngel’s platform has funded over $125 million in cases and over 25,000 fundings. Rather than replacing the market, it restructures it: using competition, compliance guardrails, and price visibility to push to create fair funding that allows the maximum recovery for plaintiffs.
What both models share — and what the broader market too often lacks — is a commitment to clarity, predictability, and the plaintiff’s long-term well-being.
The Litigation Funding Space Does Not Need One Ethical Option. It Needs an Ethical Ecosystem
No single organization, nonprofit or commercial, can reform a market on its own. What the consumer litigation funding space needs is not one good actor, but a shift in what the entire space considers normal.
That means pricing that is disclosed in plain terms before a plaintiff signs anything. It means interest structures that do not compound in ways that obscure the true cost of borrowing, rate caps and repayment limits that protect plaintiffs from runaway debt, and attorneys who can recommend funding sources without ethical ambiguity. Most importantly, it means a culture within the industry that treats plaintiffs as people seeking justice, not as assets to be monetized.
None of this is radical. It is simply what a functioning, ethical market looks like, and it is what the litigation funding space has not yet fully become.
The Milestone Foundation and ClaimAngel are working toward this standard and are proof that it is achievable. What remains is for the broader market to follow, and for plaintiffs, attorneys, and advocates to demand nothing less.
A plaintiff should never have to choose between financial survival and justice. The system that claims to serve them should be built accordingly.
