At The Milestone Foundation, we work with many plaintiffs whose cases begin with a car accident. For them, the crash itself is only the beginning of the hardship. In the weeks and months that follow, they may be dealing with painful injuries, mounting medical bills, missed paychecks, transportation issues, and uncertainty about the future.
That financial pressure becomes even heavier when insurance claims are delayed, denied, or underpaid.
A recent report highlighting claim denials in the auto insurance industry has sparked an important conversation about fairness, transparency, and accountability. While every claim is different and some denials may be legitimate, the broader concern is one we see every day: when injured people cannot access timely support, families suffer.
The Human Impact of Delayed or Denied Claims
Behind every insurance claim is a real person trying to rebuild their life after an accident.
When support is delayed or denied, plaintiffs may face impossible choices, such as:
Paying rent or covering medical treatment
Buying groceries or keeping up with utility bills
Returning to work too soon before fully healing
Taking on debt just to survive
Losing stability during an already traumatic time
For many, these are not hypothetical concerns—they are urgent realities.
Why Financial Stability Matters During Litigation
Personal injury cases often take time to resolve. Investigations, treatment, negotiations, and legal proceedings do not happen overnight. Yet bills continue to arrive while a case is pending.
That gap between injury and resolution is where plaintiffs are most vulnerable. Without support, financial stress can become overwhelming and may even pressure injured people into accepting less than they deserve simply to make ends meet.
How The Milestone Foundation Helps
The Milestone Foundation was created to offer a better path. As the only nonprofit in the consumer litigation funding industry, our mission is rooted in one belief: plaintiff funding should be a resource and a benefit, not a harm.
We provide low-cost financial assistance designed to help plaintiffs maintain stability while their cases move forward. Our goal is not to profit from hardship, but to provide dignity, relief, and hope during a difficult chapter.
For plaintiffs recovering from car accidents, that support can help cover essential living expenses such as:
Housing
Utilities
Groceries
Transportation
Everyday necessities
Why Transparency and Consumer Protection Matter
Conversations about insurance reform are ultimately conversations about people. Plaintiffs deserve a system that is fair, transparent, and responsive when they need help most. They deserve accountability from institutions that collect premiums and promise protection.
Stronger consumer protections and greater transparency can help restore trust and ensure injured individuals are not left behind after an accident.
Looking Ahead
At The Milestone Foundation, we will continue standing with plaintiffs navigating financial hardship after car accidents and other serious injuries. Because access to justice is about more than the courtroom—it is also about whether someone can keep a roof overhead, put food on the table, and hold on long enough to see their case through.
When claims go unpaid, the consequences are personal. That is why our work matters.
For many Americans, the idea of “basic living expenses” has shifted from a baseline of stability to a constant financial strain.
Basic living expenses refer to the essential costs required to maintain a household and function day-to-day. These typically include housing, utilities, groceries, transportation, and healthcare—expenses that are not optional, but necessary for survival.
Today, those costs are higher than ever. Recent data (including consumer financial insights from Intuit research) shows that the average American household spends approximately $6,000 per month or more on basic living expenses. In many cases, housing alone consumes 25% to 33% of household income, leaving little flexibility for emergencies or unexpected financial disruptions.
What “Basic” Actually Costs Today
Across the United States, essential monthly expenses commonly break down as follows:
Housing (rent or mortgage, insurance, taxes): ~$2,000–$2,200/month
Transportation (car payments, fuel, insurance, public transit): ~$1,000–$1,100/month
Healthcare (insurance, prescriptions, care): varies widely, often several hundred dollars monthly
When combined, these necessities leave many households with little to no remaining income after covering the basics. And for families facing unexpected crises such as job loss, illness, or injury, the financial pressure can become immediate and overwhelming.
The Hidden Financial Pressure Behind Legal Claims
One of the most overlooked financial stressors comes when individuals are involved in legal claims that take months or even years to resolve. While a case moves through the legal system, daily life does not pause. Bills continue. Rent is due. Transportation is still required. Families still need food, childcare, and medical care.
To illustrate this, in 2025, The Milestone Foundation reviewed the needs of plaintiffs it supported and found the following breakdown of financial pressure:
Combination of multiple essential needs: 45%
Housing costs: 34%
Transportation: 14%
Childcare: 6%
These numbers highlight a critical reality: for many plaintiffs, financial strain is not caused by one expense, but by several overlapping necessities that become unmanageable at once.
Where The Milestone Foundation Fits In
As a provider of low-interest pre-settlement funding, The Milestone Foundation helps plaintiffs maintain financial stability while their legal cases are pending. This support is designed to cover essential living costs, so individuals are not forced into financial desperation while waiting for fair resolution. By helping plaintiffs meet basic needs like housing, utilities, transportation, and childcare, the Foundation helps ensure that financial pressure does not dictate legal outcomes.
Access to Justice Includes Financial Stability
Access to justice is often discussed in terms of legal rights, representation, and fair outcomes. But there is another layer that is just as important: the ability to survive financially while pursuing justice. When basic living costs consume nearly all household income, even a strong legal claim can become difficult to sustain. Financial instability can pressure individuals into settling early or accepting less than they deserve simply to meet immediate needs. Addressing this gap is central to The Milestone Foundation’s mission—ensuring that plaintiffs are not forced to choose between financial survival and fair legal recovery.
The Bigger Picture
Rising costs of living are not a temporary challenge—they reflect a broader economic reality affecting millions of households. As essential expenses continue to climb, more Americans find themselves living one unexpected event away from financial instability. Understanding this context is essential to understanding why financial support during litigation matters. Because access to justice doesn’t just happen in court—it happens at the kitchen table, at the rent due date, and in the everyday decisions families are forced to make while waiting for their cases to resolve.
At The Milestone Foundation, everything we do begins with a simple but powerful idea: plaintiff funding should be a resource and a benefit, not a harm, to plaintiffs. That belief is the reason we chose to be a nonprofit organization—and it continues to guide how we serve the legal community every day.
What It Means to Be a Nonprofit
The Milestone Foundation is a 501c3 public charity, incorporated in New York State. We are the only nonprofit in the consumer litigation funding industry.
Being a nonprofit means that our organization exists to advance a mission rather than generate profits for owners or shareholders. Any funds we receive—whether through repaid advances, donations, grants, or partnerships—are reinvested directly into our programs, services, and initiatives.
For The Milestone Foundation, this structure ensures that every dollar supports the people we care about most: plaintiffs. It creates accountability, transparency, and a deep sense of responsibility to the communities we serve.
Why We Chose the Nonprofit Path
The decision to become a nonprofit wasn’t just a legal or financial one—it was a reflection of our values.
We recognized early on that the consumer litigation funding industry is not plaintiff friendly. Traditional funding companies charge high interest rates that can leave a plaintiff depleted once they finally receive their settlement. The priority of the traditional pre-settlement funding industry is making money, not helping to keep plaintiffs stable while they go through litigation.
But our origination was also designed as an experiment: can a nonprofit organization make it in the consumer litigation funding industry? Is it possible to provide plaintiff funding at low-cost? Is there an appetite for this among the civil justice community? Would trial lawyers show up and support this type of nonprofit?
Ten years later, the answer to these questions is YES.
The challenges we aim to address require long-term commitment, trust, and collaboration. A nonprofit model allows us to:
Focus entirely on impact rather than revenue generation
Build trust with donors, partners, plaintiffs, and the legal community
Access funding opportunities like grants and charitable contributions
Operate with transparency, ensuring stakeholders know how resources are used
Most importantly, it keeps us aligned with our mission of fair funding.
How the Nonprofit Model Works for Plaintiffs
The Milestone Foundation delivers fair pricing because its nonprofit structure changes the fundamental economics of litigation funding. Here is how the model works in practice — and why it consistently costs less.
The Recycled Capital Cycle
When a case settles, the plaintiff repays the advance plus the agreed simple interest. In a for-profit model, that repayment goes to investors and shareholders. At The Milestone Foundation, every dollar of repaid capital flows back into the fund to support new plaintiffs. This recycled capital model means the same pool of money can serve multiple plaintiffs over time, reducing the need to charge high rates to attract external investment.
Simple Interest, Not Compounding
Most for-profit funders charge interest that compounds monthly or quarterly. At a 5% monthly compounding rate, a $10,000 advance can grow to $17,958 in just 12 months. The Milestone Foundation charges 15% simple annual interest on pre-settlement funding. On that same $10,000 advance over 12 months, the total repayment is $11,500 — a savings of nearly $6,500. The interest never compounds, never accelerates, and never surprises. Compare the costs to see how much your clients could save.
The Donor-Fueled Advantage
The Milestone Foundation benefits from three revenue sources that for-profit funders lack: philanthropic contributions, Cy Pres awards, and grants. These funds reduce the organization’s cost of capital. When combined with recycled principal and zero shareholder profit requirements, the result is sustainably low interest rates that a for-profit entity cannot match.
Non-Recourse by Design
Every funding agreement at The Milestone Foundation is non-recourse: if the plaintiff loses the case, they owe nothing. The nonprofit structure reinforces this promise because there are no shareholder demands for repayment. The risk of loss is absorbed by the nonprofit’s capital pool rather than passed on to plaintiffs through higher rates or hidden fees.
Why It Matters
Choosing to be a nonprofit shapes everything about The Milestone Foundation—from how we make decisions to how we measure success.
It means:
Putting people before profit
Staying committed to long-term industry change
Building relationships rooted in trust
Being a leader in the consumer litigation funding industry
Ensuring that impact, not income, defines our success
Looking Ahead
As we continue to grow, our nonprofit identity will remain at the heart of everything we do. It’s not just a designation—it’s a commitment to serve with integrity, compassion, and purpose.
The Milestone Foundation is proud to be a nonprofit organization, and we are grateful for everyone who helps make our mission possible.
On March 4, a Missouri judge gave initial approval to the proposed $7.25 billion settlement, which would resolve thousands of pending lawsuits claiming that Bayer’s Roundup causes cancer.
Only a day later, dozens of consumer litigation funders already have webpages up, ready to encourage plaintiffs to seek settlement advances.
Consumer litigation funding plays an important role in our legal system, enabling plaintiffs to pursue justice rather than dropping their claims or settling for less than their injuries deserve. However, for this funding to truly support justice, funders must make their funding terms clear and in plain language from the get-go of engaging with an interested plaintiff and offer support at rates that are not exploitative or nearly usurious.
The industry must also reassess how it positions its offerings. Consumer litigation finance should be viewed as a last resort by plaintiffs and leveraged after plaintiffs have discussed with their attorneys; funders should not proactively solicit plaintiffs to seek settlement advances.
This growing industry is like the Wild West of our legal system—and the unclear terms on websites that offer plaintiffs pre-settlement funding, coupled with the lack of regulation on interest rates that can be charged, highlight critical opportunities for reform.
A Nationally Unregulated Industry
Consumer litigation funding began in the 1990s as a tool for plaintiffs who were increasingly seeing their personal injury claims deliberately dragged out by insurance companies who realized that the longer litigation would take, the less money a plaintiff would accept. By providing plaintiffs a way to cover the gap in paying life expenses while they pursued their case, the attorney could see the lawsuit through to its just end. This funding is typically used to cover critical daily expenses such as housing, transportation, and groceries. Unlike commercial litigation funding, it is not used to finance the litigation itself. But in the decades since consumer litigation funding’s beginnings, it has grown into a sprawling, largely unregulated industry.
While some states have enacted meaningful legislation for plaintiffs around litigation funding, most states lack any formal protection for plaintiffs. Because plaintiff funding advances are non-recourse, many traditional funders can easily navigate around states’ usury and other consumer protection laws.
Further, there is no federal cap on the interest rates that lenders can charge for litigation funding. Annual percentage rates (APRs) on advances in this market range from 30% and can soar as high as up to 124%. This lack of regulation exposes plaintiffs to financial risk while they pursue their case or wait for their settlement.
Roundup Funding Terms
A consumer looking for a settlement advance for their Roundup injury claims will likely have little chance of understanding the terms of what they are getting. Even a cursory review of half a dozen funders’ Roundup funding pages leaves the consumer in the dark about the terms of their funding.
While it’s easy for someone to enter their name, email, requested funding amount, and preferred delivery method for the advance, these pages provide no meaningful disclosure of the funding terms, like the interest rate or Annual Percentage Rate, of their repayment schedule, or additional fees.
For the average consumer, this looks like a low-stakes way to secure funding for a settlement they believe is on the way. But what they may not realize is that they could owe tens of thousands of dollars on their advance by the time their settlement arrives.
One funder states, “We can provide you with up to $1 million in legal funding. The money can be deposited in your bank account within 24 hours of your application’s approval. Applying is easy and takes just a few minutes and can be done online or with one of our agents.” But nowhere on its page does it walk a plaintiff through the interest rates and how that could impact their total recovery after the settlement.
The opaque nature of the consumer litigation funding industry leaves plaintiffs vulnerable to exploitation after they have already suffered a significant trauma that brought them into the legal process in the first place.
Opportunities for Reform
Consumer litigation funding is a critical bridge to justice for hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs across the country. The industry must balance risk with the goal of opening up access to justice—not just enriching funders at the expense of qualified plaintiffs.
Whether that is funders undertaking a more discerning vetting process for whom they fund, or building their financing model with an interest rate that still provides plaintiffs with most of their settlement, failure to adjust the industry leaves this critical option open to criticism and vulnerable to unilateral efforts to stop the practice. It puts plaintiffs across the country who rely on consumer litigation funding at risk.
States across the country have introduced legislation to protect consumers, from Ohio and Oklahoma to Nebraska and New York. These states have established benchmark requirements for litigation funders to engage with plaintiffs, but more needs to be done at the national level.
Instead of allowing plaintiffs to quickly sign up for loans without disclosures of forthcoming APRs, federal legislation should require up-front disclosures of interest rates, expected APRs, and plan-language contract terms. Funders should also be limited on the total amount of a plaintiff’s final settlement that they can recover. Finally, a national cap on interest rates would protect plaintiffs from exploitative lenders, balancing risk with plaintiffs’ ability to access the settlement they are entitled to.
These common-sense reforms would benefit not only those currently seeking funding after a major national settlement announcement but also all plaintiffs across the country.
Rachel McCarthy is the Executive Director of The Milestone Foundation.
In the litigation funding industry, conversations around interest caps are becoming more common—often positioned as a necessary protection for plaintiffs.
At The Milestone Foundation, we take a different approach.
We don’t need an interest cap because our rates are already designed to be fair, transparent, and significantly lower than all other pre-settlement funding options.
A Different Model by Design
As a nonprofit focused on ethical consumer litigation funding, our goal isn’t to maximize returns—it’s to support plaintiffs during some of the most challenging periods of their lives.
That means offering:
Simple, transparent terms
No compounding structures that rapidly increase costs
Rates that prioritize long-term fairness
What the Numbers Show
When you compare outcomes over time, the difference is clear.
Over the course of 2–3 years, traditional funding models that rely on compounding interest can dramatically increase what a client ultimately owes. Even with caps in place, repayment amounts can grow quickly and often doubling or tripling the original advance.
By contrast, The Milestone Foundation’s model uses a 15% simple interest rate for pre-settlement funding and a 10% simple interest rate for post-settlement funding, resulting in significantly lower total repayment amounts over time.
As shown in the chart below, plaintiffs funded through our model consistently owe far less than they would under common industry structures like:
18% semi-annual compounding
3% monthly compounding
Why This Matters for Plaintiffs
Litigation can take years. During that time, financial pressure shouldn’t force someone into settling early or accepting less than their case is worth.
Lower, more predictable costs mean:
Greater financial stability during the case
Less pressure to settle prematurely
More equitable outcomes overall
A Focus on Fairness, Not Limits
Interest caps are one way to address high-cost funding—but they’re not the only solution.
At The Milestone Foundation, we believe the better approach is to build fairness into the model from the start.
By keeping rates low and structures simple, we ensure that plaintiffs are supported throughout the legal process.
As state-level regulation of consumer litigation funding expands rapidly in 2026, attorneys nationwide need to understand how new laws affect their clients’ access to fair, transparent funding. The Milestone Foundation offers a nonprofit alternative designed to help plaintiffs cover expenses during litigation with simple interest, never compounding.
Key Legislative Trends
State legislatures across the United States are increasingly focusing on consumer litigation funding (CLF), with new laws and proposed bills aimed at regulating disclosure requirements, fee structures, and funder conduct. The 2025–2026 legislative cycle reflects a broader shift toward formal regulatory frameworks rather than outright bans on litigation finance.
What Is the Current State of New York’s Consumer Litigation Funding Act?
New York has emerged as the most active state in shaping litigation funding regulations. In December 2025, the state enacted the Consumer Litigation Funding Act (A804-C / S1104A), establishing a comprehensive framework governing consumer litigation funding agreements. The law took effect in June 2026.
Key provisions include:
A cap limiting funder recovery to 25% of the gross settlement or judgment
Mandatory plain-language contract requirements
A 10-day consumer rescission period
Registration and regulatory oversight of litigation funders
Prohibitions on funders influencing litigation strategy or settlement decisions
These provisions establish New York as a model jurisdiction for structured regulation of the industry (Goldberg Segalla, 2025).
While this legislation is progress, the bill still doesn’t cap interest rates that lenders can charge, nor does it impose rules or restrictions on the types of fees that can be charged. As the legislature looks to further protect plaintiffs, these areas must be targeted for reform and additional oversight.
Litigation funding should provide plaintiffs with a bridge to seek justice, not expose them to additional risk after trauma (McCarthy Woodruff, 2026).
Building on this framework, New York Senate Bill S08808 (2026) is currently under consideration. The bill would further refine regulatory structure by:
Placing oversight under financial services law (Article 10 framework)
Requiring annual reporting and formal registration of funding entities
Standardizing contract requirements
Defining covered litigation funding transactions, including advances up to $500,000 tied to case proceeds
Rather than introducing new regulation from scratch, S08808 represents a technical expansion and administrative refinement of the 2025 law (LegiScan, 2026).
What Are the New 2026 Legislative Developments in California, Kansas, and Ohio?
Since the original publication of this article, three additional states have introduced or advanced significant litigation funding legislation. These developments signal that the regulatory momentum is not limited to New York but is spreading across the country.
California AB-743: Lawsuit Financier Licensing Under the DFPI
California Assembly Bill 743 would bring lawsuit financiers under the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) licensing framework. Currently under consideration in the 2025-2026 session, the bill proposes significant regulatory requirements:
A $250,000 surety bond requirement for litigation funding entities
Civil penalties of up to $100,000 for first violations and $250,000 for repeat violations
Mandatory licensing through the DFPI, bringing funders under the California Financing Law
Disclosure requirements for contract terms, interest rates, and fee structures
If passed, California AB-743 would position California as the largest state with a formal licensing framework for consumer litigation funding, following New York’s lead with an enforcement-first approach.
Kansas SB 426: Transparency in Consumer Legal Funding Act
Kansas Senate Bill 426, known as the Transparency in Consumer Legal Funding Act, has cleared committee and is awaiting floor action. Key provisions include:
Registration with the Kansas Secretary of State for all litigation funding entities
A prohibition on foreign government or foreign adversary funding of litigation
Consumer protections with statutory damages of up to $10,000 per violation
Attorney fee recovery for consumers who prevail in enforcement actions
Plain-language disclosure requirements for funding agreements
Kansas SB 426 represents a growing trend among Midwestern states to regulate funding transparency while addressing national security concerns about foreign funding sources.
Ohio House Bill 105 proposes to repeal and replace existing Section 1349.55 with a new comprehensive framework under Sections 1357.01-1357.08. This is one of the most detailed regulatory proposals outside of New York:
Prohibits foreign-domiciled funding entities from operating in Ohio
Requires attorney consent before funders can access confidential case information
Establishes consumer lien priority protections to ensure plaintiffs receive their share first
Grants the Ohio Attorney General enforcement authority over violations
Creates a registration system for all litigation funding providers
Ohio HB 105 would make Ohio the most comprehensively regulated state for non-recourse litigation funding in the Midwest, with strong consumer and attorney protections.
State-by-State Regulation Comparison Table
The table below compares all five states with enacted or pending litigation funding regulations, highlighting key provisions attorneys need to know.
National Trends in Litigation Funding Legislation (2025-2026)
Outside of New York, state legislatures are increasingly exploring similar regulatory approaches, with several common themes emerging across proposals.
A. Consumer Protection and Licensing Frameworks
A growing number of states are considering or drafting legislation that would:
Require licensing or formal registration of litigation funding companies
Mandate standardized disclosures and contract language
Introduce cooling-off or rescission periods
Impose limits on fees or total repayment amounts, either through caps or “reasonableness” standards
These proposals closely follow the New York model and reflect a broader shift toward treating litigation funding as a regulated financial service industry.
B. Increased Transparency Requirements
Another major trend is expanded transparency obligations. Some legislative proposals would require disclosure of litigation funding agreements:
To courts
To opposing parties
In certain cases, in mass tort or class action proceedings
These proposals are often linked to broader concerns about transparency in complex litigation and potential third-party influence. Similar ideas are reflected in federal proposals such as the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026, which would require disclosure in federal multidistrict litigation (MDLs) and class actions (Institute for Legal Reform, 2026).
C. Control Restrictions and “Champerty-Adjacent” Reforms
Rather than reinstating traditional champerty doctrines, modern legislation tends to regulate funder conduct indirectly by restricting control and influence. Common provisions include:
Prohibitions on funders directing litigation strategy
Restrictions on influencing settlement decisions
Limitations on referral arrangements between funders and attorneys
Safeguards addressing conflicts of interest and confidentiality concerns
These measures function as modern equivalents of champerty restrictions, focusing on maintaining attorney independence rather than banning funding outright.
Key Takeaways for Attorneys
The 2025-2026 legislative landscape reflects a clear national trend:
New York is currently the leading regulatory model for consumer litigation funding
States are moving toward structured regulation rather than prohibition
The primary policy themes include consumer protection, transparency, and limits on funder control
California, Kansas, and Ohio are the most recent states to join the regulatory wave
Additional states are expected to introduce New York-style frameworks in upcoming legislative sessions
For attorneys navigating this changing landscape, understanding state-specific requirements is essential when advising clients about litigation funding options. Contact The Milestone Foundation to learn more about how our nonprofit, simple-interest funding model aligns with emerging state regulations while putting plaintiffs first.
Connecting Regulation to Access to Justice
As state-level regulation of litigation funding continues to evolve, the broader conversation remains centered on how to balance consumer protection with meaningful access to justice. Stronger oversight, clearer disclosures, and fairer fee structures all play an important role in ensuring plaintiffs are treated equitably within the litigation finance ecosystem.
Organizations like The Milestone Foundation operate within this same landscape, providing pre-settlement funding intended to support plaintiffs facing financial pressure during long litigation timelines. As regulatory frameworks develop, the focus on ethical, transparent funding models remains central to ensuring that plaintiffs can pursue their claims without being forced into premature or disadvantaged settlements due to financial hardship. Apply for funding or refer a client to discover how fair, transparent funding works.
Sources
LegiScan, New York Senate Bill S08808 (2026) https://legiscan.com/ (bill tracking database)
U.S. veterans have dedicated their lives to serving their country, yet many face significant challenges long after their service ends. From exposure-related harms to financial instability, veterans can oftenbe navigating complex legal and personal battles at the same time.
In recent years, many veterans have become involved in large-scale litigation tied to their service, including the 3M Combat Arms Earplug litigation, Camp Lejeune water contamination claims, and PFAS-related lawsuits affecting military bases nationwide. These cases are often lengthy, complex, and can take years to resolve.
At the same time, veterans are increasingly facing financial strain. Recently, more than 10,000 veterans have lost their homes to foreclosure since May 2025, with another 90,000 at risk. For a population that is already historically underserved, these challenges highlight a growing need for additional support systems.
A Unique Financial Challenge
For veterans involved in litigation, the financial burden can be especially difficult. While pursuing justice, many are also managing everyday expenses—housing, food, healthcare, and supporting their families.
When cases stretch over long periods of time, this financial pressure can impact decision-making. Plaintiffs may feel forced to settle early or accept less favorable outcomes simply to stay afloat.
The Importance of Ethical Funding Options
This is where ethical plaintiff funding becomes critical.
Not all funding options are created equally. Veterans need access to transparent, fair, and responsible funding solutions that prioritize their wellbeing.
Ethical funding means:
Clear, upfront terms
Reasonable cost structures
No influence over legal decisions
A focus on supporting plaintiffs through the process—not taking advantage of them
For veterans who have already sacrificed so much, having access to this kind of support can make a meaningful difference in their ability to pursue justice on their own terms.
The Milestone Foundation’s Perspective
The Milestone Foundation provides pre-settlement funding to plaintiffs navigating long and complex litigation, helping reduce financial pressure while they wait for their cases to resolve.
We believe that access to justice should never be determined by financial circumstances. For veterans—who have given so much in service—ensuring access to ethical, compassionate support is especially important.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, expanding fair and responsible funding options for underserved populations like veterans remains a critical part of the broader access-to-justice conversation.
In complex litigation, achieving a fair outcome often takes time, patience, and thoughtful decision-making. If you are out of work due to an accident or injury, everyday expenses don’t pause. Apply for fair pre-settlement funding to help cover essential costs while your case moves forward, so financial pressure doesn’t become the deciding factor.
When that pressure builds, it can start to influence decisions. Some plaintiffs may feel the need to resolve their case sooner than they would like, but not because it reflects the true value of their claim, but because immediate financial stress becomes the driving factor.
That’s where pre-settlement funding and responsible plaintiff funding can make a meaningful difference.
The Milestone Foundation provides low-cost litigation funding designed to help plaintiffs maintain financial stability while their case is ongoing. We believe that access to fair pre-settlement funding plays an important role in helping individuals stay the course during the legal process.
When plaintiffs have access to responsible financial support, they are better positioned to focus on their recovery, remain engaged in their case, and make informed decisions without the pressure of immediate financial hardship.
Client Stability: How Financial Support Drives Better Case Outcomes
When plaintiffs have consistent financial stability throughout their litigation, the benefits extend far beyond personal relief — they directly influence case outcomes. Plaintiffs who are not under financial duress can:
Fair settlement timing: Wait for fair settlement offers rather than accepting early lowball offers out of necessity.
Medical compliance: Attend all medical appointments and follow treatment plans without worrying about how to cover copays or lost wages.
Deposition credibility: Provide more complete and credible deposition testimony because their focus is on the facts of the case, not mounting bills.
Attorney communication: Maintain open communication with their attorney instead of avoiding calls for fear of discussing money problems.
Negotiation leverage: Allow their attorney to negotiate from a position of strength rather than pressure to settle quickly for less than the case is worth.
Financially stable plaintiffs are also less likely to dismiss their cases prematurely or agree to unfavorable settlement terms. When a plaintiff can afford to hold out for a just resolution, the entire legal process benefits — the attorney has more leverage in negotiations, the case builds a stronger evidentiary record, and the outcome more accurately reflects the true value of the claim.
The Milestone Foundation’s pre-settlement funding is structured to preserve this stability. With simple interest at 15% annually — never compounding — and a non-recourse model where plaintiffs owe nothing if they lose, the funding creates a financial foundation that supports the legal strategy rather than undermining it. Attorneys can focus on building the strongest possible case, knowing their client’s basic needs are covered.
This type of plaintiff funding does not impact the legal strategy or the merits of a case; it helps ensure that financial strain is not the deciding factor in critical decisions.
Plaintiff funding gives attorneys the time they need to focus on the case, while ensuring their clients are financially supported and not pressured to settle before the right outcome is reached.
Maximizing a case outcome isn’t about prolonging litigation; it’s about ensuring plaintiffs have the stability they need to see their case through with confidence. By reducing financial pressure through low interest funding, we help create an environment where decisions can be made thoughtfully and fairly.
At The Milestone Foundation, our mission is to provide ethical pre-settlement funding so plaintiffs can pursue the outcome they deserve, and attorneys can feel confident their clients are supported every step of the way.
The Compassionate Counsel Award is about more than legal excellence. It’s about recognizing attorneys who lead with empathy, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to their clients.
Trial lawyers play a unique and powerful role in our justice system. They are not only advocates in the courtroom but also trusted guides for individuals navigating some of the most challenging moments of their lives. For many plaintiffs, the legal process is long, complex, and emotionally taxing. The attorneys who stand out are those who understand that their role goes beyond legal strategy—they show up with compassion.
What Is Compassionate Counsel?
The Compassionate Counsel Award honors attorneys who exemplify the values of fairness, empathy, and justice—both inside and outside the courtroom.
These are attorneys who:
Put their clients’ wellbeing first, even beyond legal outcomes
Demonstrate empathy and humanity alongside strong legal advocacy
Uphold the highest standards of integrity in pursuit of justice
Recognize the real-life challenges plaintiffs face during litigation
Whether helping a client navigate financial stress, connecting them with resources like pre-settlement funding, or simply taking the time to listen and support, compassionate counsel understand that their clients are more than just cases—they are people.
Why This Recognition Matters
For many plaintiffs, the time between filing a case and reaching a resolution can be one of the most difficult periods of their lives. Lost income, the need for childcare, food, transportation, and other everyday expenses can quickly create financial strain.
This is where the broader ecosystem—including ethical consumer litigation funding—plays a role. But just as important are the attorneys who recognize these challenges and advocate for their clients holistically.
The Compassionate Counsel Award shines a light on those attorneys who go above and beyond—who not only fight for justice, but also ensure their clients feel supported, respected, and understood throughout the process.
Celebrating Leadership in the Plaintiff Bar
By recognizing attorneys who embody these values, The Milestone Foundation aims to celebrate leaders within the plaintiff bar and inspire others to approach their practice with the same commitment to compassion and integrity.
These individuals are setting a higher standard—one that prioritizes people alongside outcomes.
Help Us Recognize Compassionate Counsel
We invite you to help us shine a spotlight on attorneys who truly make a difference.
If you know an attorney who embodies fairness, empathy, and a client-first approach, we encourage you to submit a nomination.
New York’s new Consumer Litigation Funding Act marks an important step toward reforming an industry that has long operated with limited oversight and, in many cases, at the expense of the very people it was meant to help.
Set to take effect in June, the law introduces stronger consumer protections, including plain-language contracts and a cap preventing funders from taking more than 25% of a plaintiff’s settlement or judgment. These changes represent meaningful progress—but they are only the beginning.
Why Litigation Funding Exists
Litigation funding was originally designed to serve as a financial bridge for plaintiffs navigating the often lengthy legal process. Pre-settlement and post-settlement funding provides support for everyday living expenses—not legal fees—so individuals can maintain stability while pursuing their case.
For many plaintiffs, especially those from low- and middle-income households, the alternatives are limited:
Accept a lower settlement early just to cover immediate expenses
Take on high-interest debt
Risk their financial security while waiting for a case to resolve
In these moments, funding can be a lifeline. But without proper safeguards, it can also create new financial burdens.
The Problem with For-Profit Funding
Today, the litigation funding landscape is largely unregulated at the federal level. For-profit funders often charge annual percentage rates ranging from 30% to over 100%, far exceeding traditional lending products like credit cards.
Because these advances are non-recourse—meaning repayment is only required if a case is successful—many lenders operate outside traditional consumer protection laws. This structure allows them to impose complex and often excessive repayment terms on plaintiffs who are already in vulnerable situations.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Consider three hypothetical families who each receive a $10,000 advance while waiting for their case to resolve:
Family A (15% simple interest): Owes $14,500 after three years
Family B (30% compounded): Owes approximately $24,325
Family C (50% compounded): Owes over $43,000
While these scenarios are illustrative, they reflect a broader reality: high-cost funding can significantly reduce the financial recovery plaintiffs ultimately receive—limiting their ability to rebuild after a difficult experience.
What the New Law Changes
The Consumer Litigation Funding Act introduces several important protections, including:
A cap limiting funders to 25% of a settlement or judgment
Clear disclosure requirements in plain language
A 10-day right of rescission for consumers
Registration and oversight by the New York Department of State
Restrictions on misleading practices and interference in legal decisions
These measures bring much-needed transparency and accountability to the consumer litigation funding industry.
Where More Work Is Needed
Despite this progress, key gaps remain.
The law does not place limits on interest rates or fully regulate the fees that can be charged—leaving room for practices that may still disadvantage plaintiffs. As policymakers continue to evaluate the industry, these areas will be critical to address to ensure comprehensive protection for plaintiffs.
A Better Path Forward
Pre-settlement and post-settlement funding should serve its original purpose: providing plaintiffs with the financial stability they need to pursue justice—not creating additional financial strain.
At The Milestone Foundation, we believe there is a better way. As a nonprofit litigation funder, our model is designed to provide fair, transparent support without prioritizing profit. Our goal is simple: to ensure that no one has to choose between their financial stability and their right to seek justice.
Looking Ahead
New York’s new law is a meaningful step forward—but it is not the finish line. Continued reform, oversight, and innovation are essential to creating a system that truly works for plaintiffs.
Because access to justice should never depend on the ability to afford the wait.
The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy settlement brought long awaited progress for survivors. However, most claimants have only received an initial payment, roughly 1.5% of their total anticipated settlement.
In January 2026, the United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari and will not be hearing further appeals related to the BSA bankruptcy plan. That decision keeps the current bankruptcy structure and Settlement Trust in place. While it removes one layer of legal uncertainty, there are still unanswered questions about when the next disbursement will occur and how much it will be.
Unfortunately, this ongoing uncertainty has made it difficult for many survivors to obtain pre-settlement or post-settlement funding as most funding providers need clearer timelines and projected payout amounts before approving advances.
Why Upcoming Trust Updates Matter
Any new information about the timing or size of the next distribution could directly impact funding approvals. Simply put, clearer numbers reduce risk for funders, and when risk is reduced, access to funding improves. In many cases, the difference between an approval and a denial comes down to how much is known about the next expected disbursement.
Please Speak With Your Attorney
If you are considering seeking funding, consider discussing the following with your attorney before accepting any funding options:
Any recent trust updates.
Projected timing and the expected percentage of the next disbursement.
Review any funding agreement with your attorney before making a decision.
Staying informed and working with your attorney is essential to making sure that you and the settlement you are entitled to are protected while the court determines its next steps for disbursement
The Milestone Foundation Is Here to Help
As more clarity becomes available regarding future BSA distributions, funding opportunities may improve. If you or your attorney would like The Milestone Foundation to review your situation, the Foundation is available to evaluate your claim and determine whether assistance may be possible.
As a nonprofit pre-settlement funding organization, The Milestone Foundation’s goal is to provide ethical, low-cost financial support to plaintiffs navigating long legal processes.
For qualifying claims, The Milestone Foundation offers a 10% simple interest post-settlement rate, which is the lowest in the industry. Interest is not compounded, and each case is reviewed individually based on the most current information available from the Trust. The interest is reinvested back in our fund, empowering the Foundation to support more plaintiffs like you.
Funding amounts depend largely on the anticipated size of the next disbursement. As the court shares more details, The Milestone Foundation remains hopeful that additional plaintiffs may become eligible for assistance.
There is no obligation to apply, and all case reviews are confidential.
“I have a good client who is in need of pre-settlement funding, which I almost always advise against. But she is desperate, and this case will settle soon. Do you think you can help?”
As program administrator of The Milestone Foundation, the only nonprofit providing pre-settlement funding to plaintiffs in need, I often hear this sentiment. Non-recourse, pre-settlement funding companies market themselves as quick cash options for plaintiffs who are awaiting their settlements. It’s an easy lure for an individual who has undergone a catastrophic incident, one that has likely left them injured and unable to work, or facing mounting medical bills; someone who knows they will eventually receive a sum of money to live off of, but in the meantime, might not be able to afford groceries or rent. Pre-settlement funding, also referred to as litigation finance, has grown exponentially in the past decade and is now estimated to be a nine-figure industry. For many plaintiffs, this funding is a necessary lifeline to financially stay afloat as their case resolves. Yet, there are few regulations for this type of funding, often referred to as the “Wild West” of the lending industry.
Murky contracts comprised of complex language, confusing terms, hidden fees, and complicated interest calculations are common features of these advances. When an individual is desperate to make ends meet, terms like “compounding interest,” “quarterly fees,” and “capped at three times the principal” fade into the background, as “cash in less than 24 hours,” “no credit checks,” and “if you don’t win your case, you don’t owe anything” catch their attention and provide a glimmer of hope. As many attorneys can attest, once a case settles and the payment is due to the lender, this lack of transparency often renders plaintiffs shocked to see that they now owe as much as $30,000 on the $10,000 advance they received. Plaintiffs can feel duped or betrayed, and oftentimes look to their attorneys to solve the problem by negotiating “haircuts” with the funder, or even waiving their own fees. An attorney practicing in New Mexico shared: “I had a client who recently received a $50,000 settlement. She owes $16,000 on a $5,000 advance she took out, and is panicking at how little money she’s actually going to receive. I think I am going to have to waive my fees on the case just to help her stay afloat.” It’s no wonder so many attorneys discourage their clients from taking these advances, though for many individuals, these funds are more critical now than ever. Plaintiffs have long been at a disadvantage when pursuing justice against deep-pocketed corporations that can make lowball offers in mediation, or await the time it takes to go in front of a jury. As with many facets of life, the Covid pandemic has played a role in shaping the civil justice landscape, as social distancing guidelines resulted in overloaded dockets and delayed court dates for civil cases.
As a result, the advantage held by insurance companies and other defendants in personal injury cases has increased, as they continue to accept premiums and pay out less in settlements. Meanwhile, as government programs such as stimulus checks and eviction moratoriums expire, inflation continues to skyrocket, and savings dwindle, the majority of Americans are barely making ends meet; at the end of 2022, 64% of the U.S. population was living paycheck to paycheck, an increase from 61% in 2021 according to a recent LendingClub report. Much to the dismay of many experienced attorneys, these contrary factors – lengthened trial timelines and increased financial need – make non-recourse funding a necessary component of the civil litigation landscape. Given the oftentimes exploitative nature of non-recourse advances, many states have introduced legislation or enacted regulations to rein in the industry. For instance, in Colorado, some courts have voided or re-written individual litigation financing agreements as traditional loans subject to low-interest rate ceilings. While this helps plaintiffs avoid unfair and predatory rates, it also discourages many funders from assuming the risk that is inherent in non-recourse funding, leaving few options for these injured parties, who will then pressure their attorneys to settle their lawsuits – often to the detriment of their awards.
Trade organizations such as The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) and American Legal Finance Association (ALFA), often lobby state legislatures to prevent restrictions on the litigation finance industry. They argue that the non-recourse nature of the lending requires their members to assume a high level of risk that justifies their practices, as the plaintiffs are only required to repay these advances using the proceeds from their lawsuit; in the instance of an unfavorable result, the lender does not recoup their advance. ARC states that they support legislation that “enacts robust consumer legal protection for consumer legal funding and maintains consumer access, because good legislation does both.” Both ARC and ALFA champion industry best practices and sponsor legislation to reflect these practices. ARC’s best practices range from recommending that contracts reflect all costs and fees – showing how much the consumer will owe every six months, and the maximum amount a provider may ever own of a recovery – to prohibiting attorneys from receiving referral fees or commissions from the companies their clients receive their funding from. To date, six states have enacted ARC-backed legislation, while other bills are being reviewed in states like Kansas and Rhode Island. While the activities undertaken by ARC and ALFA are adding regulatory measures to the industry, some might argue that they are not going as far as necessary to truly benefit plaintiffs who are utilizing this funding. Maximum payments and fees are listed in contracts, but they are generally not easily found on websites, making it difficult for plaintiffs to compare shops. Visit our For Attorneys page for resources, or truly understand what they will owe until they go through the strenuous application and underwriting process.
Additionally, these trade organizations do not make recommendations on interest rates or maximum repayment amounts, which enables their members to continue to charge exorbitant rates and fees. But that’s not to say there are no ethical lenders in the space. Some companies are instituting policies such as capping repayment amounts at two times the principal, offering advances with simple interest that is applied every six months, helping to identify government support, and introducing innovations like debit cards that enable borrowers to pay for basic necessities. Another viable alternative to unethical lending is The Milestone Foundation, formerly known as the Bairs Foundation, which was created six years ago to provide a plaintiff-focused option in the pre-litigation space. The only nonprofit providing low, simple interest pre-settlement advances, the foundation has helped more than 600 plaintiffs by advancing more than $4.8 million. Clients can apply for pre-settlement funding today, and the foundation is looking to expand its reach to serve more clients across the country. Steven Shapiro, partner at Ogborn Mihm LLP in Colorado, has seen firsthand the benefits, as well as the pitfalls, of pre-settlement funding. “My job as an attorney is to get my clients the award they deserve. If they don’t have the resources to pay their rent or buy their groceries, they are going to feel pressured to settle, and I won’t have the time I need to bring the case to a fair resolution.” Shapiro has at times seen clients with no alternative other than to take out advances with 30 to 40 percent interest rates; while painful at the time, these clients were able to see their cases through to a reasonable conclusion. He’s also seen The Milestone Foundation at work. He recounts his client Olga, a Russian-American woman disabled in a car accident, who was in need of funding. He referred her to The Milestone Foundation.
“The foundation was able to provide Olga a reasonable advance at a reasonable rate, that enabled her to afford her living expenses for the duration of the case, which took about two years to settle and resulted in a seven-figure award. The contract was transparent and really the most wonderful thing. I would always opt to refer my clients to The Milestone Foundation rather than other lenders whose practices tend to be much more opaque.” While pre-settlement funding is often condemned by principled attorneys working to protect the best interests of their clients, ethical lenders like The Milestone Foundation are working to give the industry a new reputation. As the only nonprofit in the industry, The Milestone Foundation protects the interests of plaintiffs over profits, and hopes to inspire other entities to implement a similar approach toward pre-settlement funding. Learn more about our Membership Program and join the growing number of attorneys partnering with us.
How Does Nonprofit Pre-Settlement Funding Compare to For-Profit Funders?
When evaluating nonprofit versus for-profit pre-settlement funding, the differences go far beyond the interest rate. The table below provides a side-by-side comparison of what plaintiffs can expect from The Milestone Foundation compared to typical for-profit funders.
Factor
The Milestone Foundation (Nonprofit)
Typical For-Profit Funders
Interest Rate
15% simple annual (pre-settlement)
32%–200%+ compounding annually
Interest Type
Simple — interest never compounds
Compounding — interest charged on interest
Hidden Fees
None — full transparency
Application, processing, administrative fees
Repayment Cap
No cap beyond accrued simple interest
Often capped at 2–3x the principal
Risk to Plaintiff
Non-recourse — owe nothing if you lose
Non-recourse — but high accrual creates settlement pressure
Profit Motive
None — 501(c)(3) nonprofit mission
Investor returns drive pricing
$10,000 Over 24 Months
~$3,000 total interest (simple)
~$10,000–$60,000+ (compounding)
The difference is structural, not cosmetic. For-profit litigation funders must answer to investors who expect returns — and those returns come from plaintiffs. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, The Milestone Foundation has no investors, no profit targets, and no incentive to make funding expensive. Every dollar above our operating costs goes back into the mission: ensuring plaintiffs have access to fair, affordable funding when they need it most. That is the nonprofit legal funding model in action.
What Questions Should Plaintiffs Ask Before Accepting Pre-Settlement Funding?
Is the interest rate simple or compound?
Always ask. The Milestone Foundation charges 15% simple annual interest that never compounds. Many for-profit funders charge compounding rates that can double or triple the effective cost.
Are there any hidden fees?
The Milestone Foundation has zero hidden fees — no application fees, no processing charges, no administrative costs. The total cost is the advance amount plus simple interest, nothing more.
What happens if I lose my case?
With The Milestone Foundation, you owe nothing. All of our funding is non-recourse — if you don’t win, you don’t repay. This is standard in the industry, but the low interest means your obligation never spirals out of control.
How does nonprofit funding differ from for-profit funding?
As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, The Milestone Foundation has no investors demanding returns. This allows us to offer simple interest rates that are a fraction of what for-profit funders charge, with complete transparency and a mission focused on plaintiff welfare. Apply for pre-settlement funding today.
The Milestone Foundation is the nation’s only 501(c)(3) nonprofit consumer litigation funder. Get the funding your client needs — without the fine print. Refer a Client →
