Category: Uncategorized

By Rachel McCarthy

North Carolina recently enacted the Prohibit Litigation Investments Act, legislation intended to restrict outside investment in litigation. If you google it, all major headlines tout North Carolina as the “first state to ban third-party litigation financing.” These headlines are misleading as they miss a major component. While much of the discussion surrounding the Act has focused on its limitations on litigation investment, one aspect deserves equal attention: the law excludes consumer litigation funding. 

The Statutory Exception 

The Act itself makes this distinction clear. Section 66-512(3)(g) excludes from the definition of a prohibited litigation investment: 

“The provision of money or other financial support to a party for personal and household expenses during the pendency of a civil proceeding so long as the money or financial support is not used for the fees, costs, and expenses of the civil proceeding.” 

This language is significant because it confirms that the General Assembly did not prohibit financial assistance provided to consumers for their day-to-day living expenses while their legal claims are pending. Instead, the exclusion recognizes that helping plaintiffs pay for necessities such as housing, food, utilities, transportation, and similar household expenses serves a purpose that is distinct from investing in litigation itself. 

Commercial Litigation Investment vs. Consumer Litigation Funding 

Although the terms are sometimes grouped together under the umbrella of “litigation funding,” commercial litigation investment and consumer litigation funding serve fundamentally different markets. 

Commercial litigation investment typically involves sophisticated investors providing capital to businesses or law firms in exchange for a financial interest tied to the outcome of commercial litigation. These transactions are often structured as investment vehicles involving large-dollar business disputes. 

Consumer litigation funding, by contrast, provides financial assistance directly to individual plaintiffs while their cases are pending. These funds can help cover essential living expenses such as rent, mortgage payments, utilities, groceries, transportation, or medical costs during what can be a lengthy litigation process. 

Section 66-512(3)(g) demonstrates that the General Assembly recognized these distinctions and intentionally treated consumer funding differently from commercial litigation investment. 

Why the Exception Matters 

For many injured individuals, litigation is not simply a legal process—it is a financial challenge. 

A plaintiff who has suffered a serious injury may be unable to work for months while waiting for a case to resolve. Insurance companies and defendants often have substantial financial resources and can afford lengthy litigation. Individual plaintiffs frequently cannot. 

Consumer litigation funding can help bridge that gap by allowing plaintiffs to meet basic financial obligations without feeling compelled to accept an early settlement solely because they need immediate cash. 

Let it be noted that North Carolina does have strict rules and regulations around plaintiff funding, and therefore not many traditional funding companies will fund in that state. The state protects consumers by having a ~43% interest cap per year for funding over $25k, and an interest cap of ~16% for advances that are less than $25k. Since these rates are lower than most funding companies will provide, most simply avoid North Carolina (however that is not the case with the Milestone Foundation, as our low rates are compliant with North Carolina thresholds.) 

Preserving Access to Justice 

The consumer funding exception also reflects broader access-to-justice considerations. 

Individuals pursuing legitimate claims often face significant delays before receiving compensation. During that time, they may experience lost wages, mounting medical bills, and other financial pressures. 

Without access to financial assistance, some plaintiffs may abandon valid claims or accept settlements below fair value simply because they cannot afford to wait. 

By expressly excluding financial support for personal and household expenses from the Act’s prohibitions, North Carolina preserved an option that may help level the playing field between individual plaintiffs and well-funded defendants. 

Looking Ahead: Increased Statewide Regulation 

As litigation finance continues to evolve, policymakers will continue debating the appropriate regulation of different funding models. Just within the past year we have seen an increase in states pursuing legislation to regulate litigation funding, with New York and California being two major models. North Carolina’s Prohibit Litigation Investments Act demonstrates that state models need not and will not be treated identically. 

I believe the press around North Carolina’s Act has been intentionally broad, so consumers assume plaintiff funding is included in the definition of prohibited litigation investments and thus would not be an option for them. But by expressly excluding financial support for plaintiffs’ personal and household expenses, the General Assembly acknowledged that access to justice for individual consumers raises different considerations than commercial investment in lawsuits, and should be considered separately.

By Julia Saunders

When people think about pre-settlement funding, they often assume the approval process is the same regardless of the type of legal claim. In reality, litigation funding companies evaluate mass tort cases very differently than traditional personal injury claims.

While both types of cases may involve individuals who have been injured through no fault of their own, the path to resolution—and the financial risks involved—can be dramatically different. Those differences shape how funding companies review applications, determine eligibility, and decide how much funding they can provide.

Why Mass Tort Cases Are Different

A traditional personal injury case typically involves one plaintiff pursuing a claim against one or more defendants after a specific event, such as a motor vehicle accident or premises liability incident. The facts, injuries, and potential recovery are unique to that individual plaintiff.

Mass tort litigation is different. Although each plaintiff maintains an individual claim, hundreds—or even thousands—of similar cases are often coordinated because they involve the same defective product, pharmaceutical drug, medical device, or widespread misconduct.

Because of the complexity and scale of these cases, predicting when a case will resolve—and what an individual claimant may ultimately recover—is often much more challenging.

What Funders Consider When Evaluating Mass Tort Claims

Since mass tort cases often take longer to resolve and involve additional uncertainty, funding companies generally apply more conservative underwriting standards than they would for a typical personal injury case.

Some of the factors they commonly evaluate include:

The Stage of the Litigation

Many funders prefer established mass torts that have progressed beyond the earliest stages of litigation. Cases that are part of a mature multidistrict litigation (MDL), have completed significant discovery, or have demonstrated settlement momentum are generally viewed as less risky than newly filed mass torts.

Strength of Counsel

Attorney experience becomes even more important in mass tort litigation. Funders often consider whether the claimant is represented by a firm with substantial experience handling that particular litigation and a proven ability to successfully navigate complex mass tort cases.

Settlement Outlook

Unlike many personal injury cases, mass tort recoveries often depend on broader litigation developments, including bellwether trial outcomes, settlement negotiations, claims administration processes, and allocation methodologies. These factors can make both the timing and amount of recovery more difficult to predict.

Advance Amounts

Because of the increased uncertainty, many funding companies provide smaller initial advances for mass tort claimants than they would for traditional personal injury cases. Additional funding may be considered later as the litigation progresses and more information becomes available.

More Comprehensive Underwriting

Mass tort underwriting frequently involves a deeper review of case-specific and litigation-wide information. In addition to reviewing medical records and attorney documentation, funders may evaluate:

• The maturity of the litigation
• Prior settlement history
• Bellwether trial results
• Expected resolution timeline
• Projected allocation methods for individual claimants

Why This Matters for Plaintiffs

Mass tort plaintiffs often face the same financial hardships as any other injured individual. Medical bills continue to accumulate, household expenses remain due, and many people are unable to work while their cases move through the legal system.

At the same time, the unique characteristics of mass tort litigation require funding companies to carefully balance risk with the needs of claimants. That often results in a more detailed underwriting process and, in many cases, more conservative funding decisions.

The Milestone Foundation’s Approach

At The Milestone Foundation, we recognize that no two plaintiffs—or cases—are exactly alike. Whether someone has a traditional personal injury claim or is participating in a mass tort, our team evaluates each application individually while remaining committed to our nonprofit mission.

Our goal is to provide plaintiffs with straightforward, affordable financial support when possible through simple interest rates, transparent terms, and a funding model designed to help individuals navigate financial hardship while pursuing justice.

If you have questions about whether your case may qualify for funding, our team is always available to discuss your options.

The path to justice for Camp Lejeune victims has been filled with frustrating delays and legal hurdles. Many claimants are struggling with the financial pressure of waiting for a settlement while battling serious health conditions. This essential Camp Lejeune lawsuit update addresses these challenges head-on. We’ll explain why claims are being delayed, what it takes to prove a link between illness and exposure, and how the first bellwether trials are expected to influence the timeline for everyone. Most importantly, we’ll discuss practical ways to manage the financial strain, so you or your client can hold out for a fair outcome.

Key Takeaways

• Focus on the bellwether trials: With the filing deadline now passed, the litigation is moving into its next phase. The outcomes of the first bellwether trials will be crucial, as they will help establish the financial benchmarks for thousands of future settlement negotiations.
• A strong case is built on documentation: A successful claim requires two key pieces of evidence: proof that your client was at Camp Lejeune for at least 30 days during the contamination period and medical records that connect their diagnosis to the toxic water.
• Ethical funding gives your clients staying power: The long wait for justice creates financial pressure that can force plaintiffs to accept low offers. Recommending a nonprofit partner with simple, non-compounding interest gives your clients stability and gives you the time to secure the full compensation they deserve.

The Latest on the Camp Lejeune Lawsuit

The Camp Lejeune water contamination case is one of the largest mass tort litigations in U.S. history, affecting hundreds of thousands of veterans, their families, and civilian workers. For attorneys and their clients, staying informed on the latest developments is crucial as the legal process unfolds. The path to compensation has been long, but recent legislative action and court proceedings are finally moving claims forward. Understanding the key milestones provides a clear picture of where this complex litigation stands.

What is the Camp Lejeune Justice Act?

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA) is the landmark law that gives individuals the right to seek compensation for harm caused by the contaminated water at the base. Passed as part of the broader Honoring our PACT Act of 2022, the CLJA created a legal path for those who were exposed between August 1953 and December 1987. Before this act, many victims were blocked from filing lawsuits due to restrictive state laws. The CLJA removes those barriers, allowing veterans, their family members, and civilian employees to file claims for injuries and illnesses linked to the toxic water. You can find more details on the official Camp Lejeune Justice Act claims page.

The August 2024 Filing Deadline

The most critical date for anyone exposed to the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune has now passed. The final deadline to file an administrative claim was August 10, 2024. After this date, the window to initiate a new claim officially closed. This deadline was a firm cutoff established by the Camp Lejeune Justice Act. For attorneys and their clients who successfully filed before this date, the focus now shifts entirely to the next phases of the legal process. These next steps include the administrative review period, potential settlement negotiations, and, if necessary, moving forward with a lawsuit in federal court.

How Many Claims Have Been Filed?

The response to the Camp Lejeune Justice Act has been overwhelming, highlighting the vast number of people affected. As of the August 2024 deadline, the Navy had received over 400,000 administrative claims. Of those, more than 3,700 have progressed to lawsuits filed in federal court. The government has begun to process these claims, with the Department of Justice reporting that over $876 million has been offered in settlements so far. These numbers show that while the process is moving, the sheer volume of claims means that many families are still waiting for resolution as the legal system works to address each case.

What Health Conditions Qualify for a Claim?

If you or your client lived or worked at Camp Lejeune and later developed a serious illness, you are likely wondering if that condition qualifies for a claim under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA). The water at the base was contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) known to cause significant health problems. Because of this, the government has acknowledged a connection between exposure and a wide range of medical issues.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a list of “presumptive conditions” for veterans exposed at Lejeune, which automatically grants them disability benefits. While the CLJA legal claims are separate, this list provides a strong foundation for what illnesses are being recognized. The courts are currently prioritizing certain conditions in the initial trials, but many others may also qualify if a link to the contaminated water can be proven.

Cancers Linked to Contaminated Water

A significant number of claims involve cancers that have been scientifically linked to the industrial solvents found in Camp Lejeune’s water supply. The contamination is connected to many serious health issues, with various cancers being among the most devastating. While many types of cancer may be eligible for compensation, the courts are fast-tracking a specific group of illnesses for the first bellwether trials.

According to legal experts, the first cases moving forward focus on bladder cancer, kidney cancer, leukemia, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Other cancers with strong links include liver cancer, multiple myeloma, and esophageal cancer. If your client has been diagnosed with one of these conditions after spending time at the base, they may have a very strong case.

Parkinson’s Disease and Other Neurological Conditions

The toxic chemicals at Camp Lejeune, particularly trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE), are known to harm the central nervous system. As a result, Parkinson’s disease is one of the key conditions being addressed in the initial stages of the litigation. The connection is so well-established that Parkinson’s is one of the illnesses the government is prioritizing in the first round of Camp Lejeune lawsuits going to trial.

This focus on Parkinson’s underscores the severe neurological damage caused by the contaminated water. While it is a primary condition in the litigation, other neurological disorders may also qualify for compensation. If a claimant can demonstrate a plausible connection between their neurological condition and their exposure at Camp Lejeune, their case deserves a thorough evaluation.

Birth Defects and Reproductive Harm

The impact of Camp Lejeune’s water contamination extends to the most vulnerable: unborn children. The toxic exposure has been linked to devastating reproductive outcomes, including severe birth defects and childhood cancers. Studies have connected the contaminated water to congenital disabilities like spina bifida, anencephaly (where a major part of the brain is missing), and oral clefts. Tragically, many of these conditions are fatal or result in lifelong disabilities.

In addition to birth defects, the contamination is also associated with female infertility, miscarriage, and fetal death. These heartbreaking outcomes are a recognized part of the harm caused by the contaminated water. Attorneys representing families affected by these issues are filing claims to seek justice for the profound and lasting suffering they have endured.

Who Is Eligible to File a Claim?

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA) opens a path to compensation for a wide range of individuals, not just military service members. If your client is a veteran, a family member who lived on base, or even a civilian who worked at the camp, they may be eligible to file a claim. Eligibility isn’t automatic, however. It hinges on two fundamental criteria that you must establish for your client’s case to proceed. First, your client must prove they were present at Camp Lejeune for a specific period. Second, they must have a medical diagnosis for a health condition that has been linked to the toxic water.

For attorneys, the initial client intake process is critical for establishing these two pillars of a potential claim. You’ll need to confirm their connection to the base and gather a complete medical history. Understanding these requirements from the start helps you build a stronger case and manage your client’s expectations. The government has laid out specific timeframes for exposure and requires thorough documentation to support any claim, so gathering this information early is key to moving forward. Many claims have been delayed or denied due to simple documentation errors, a frustrating outcome for clients who have already waited decades for justice. The following sections break down exactly what you need to know about the residency rules and the documents required to prove your client’s case.

What Are the Residency and Service Requirements?

To qualify for a claim, your client must have been exposed to the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune for at least 30 days. This exposure must have occurred between August 1, 1953, and December 31, 1987. It’s important to note that these 30 days do not need to be consecutive. This window covers anyone who lived or worked on the base, including Marines and other service members, their spouses and children who resided in base housing, and civilian employees. The Camp Lejeune settlement timeline is directly tied to this exposure period, making it a non-negotiable starting point for any claim.

What Documentation Do You Need to Prove Eligibility?

A successful claim requires solid proof. Many early Camp Lejeune Justice Act claims have stalled because of insufficient documentation, so gathering the right papers is one of the most important steps you can take for your client. You will need to provide evidence that proves both their presence at the base during the specified timeframe and their related medical condition. For military service records, you can request documents from the National Archives. Your client can also create an account at VA.gov to access their recent VA medical records and benefits information. For civilians, employment records, tax forms, or housing documents can help establish their presence at Camp Lejeune.

How Does the Claims Process Work?

The path to compensation for Camp Lejeune victims is a structured, multi-step process that begins long before a case ever sees a courtroom. It starts with filing an administrative claim, which gives the government a chance to review the case and potentially offer a settlement. This initial phase is critical, as mistakes can lead to significant delays or complications down the road. For attorneys and their clients, understanding each stage is key to managing expectations and preparing for the next steps.

The process is designed to first go through an administrative review by the Department of the Navy. Only after this review is complete, or if the review period lapses, can a claimant file a formal lawsuit. This means every claimant must start at the same place. From filing the initial paperwork to the review period and responding to the government’s decision, each step has specific requirements and timelines. Knowing what to expect can help you and your client prepare a stronger case from the very beginning and ensure you are ready for whatever outcome the administrative review brings.

How to File Your Claim

The first and most important step is to file an administrative claim directly with the Department of the Navy. It’s crucial to note that claims sent to the Department of Justice, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Marine Corps will not be processed. The government has streamlined this process through an online portal.

The most efficient way to submit a claim is through the official Camp Lejeune Justice Act Claims Portal. There is no fee to file a claim, and while you can technically file without an attorney, having experienced legal counsel is essential for handling the complexities of the evidence requirements and protecting your client’s rights throughout the process. Proper filing is the foundation of a successful claim.

What Happens During the 180-Day Review?

Once a claim is successfully submitted, the Department of the Navy has 180 days (about six months) to conduct a review. During this period, the Navy assesses the evidence provided to determine if the claim is valid and what, if any, compensation is appropriate. This is an administrative review, not a legal proceeding, so there is no judge or jury involved at this stage.

There are a few possible outcomes. The Navy may approve the claim and offer a settlement, such as through the Elective Option (EO) program. Alternatively, the Navy could deny the claim if it finds the evidence insufficient. It is also possible for the 180-day window to pass without any decision at all. The outcome of this review determines your next move.

What Happens if Your Claim is Denied?

If your client’s claim is denied or if the 180-day review period expires without a resolution, the next step is to file a lawsuit. This formal legal action must be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which has exclusive jurisdiction over all Camp Lejeune Justice Act cases. This transitions the claim from an administrative process to a civil lawsuit where you will argue the case in federal court.

If the Navy makes an offer through the Elective Option that you believe is incorrect, you don’t have to accept it. Claimants have 60 days to request a review of their EO offer by submitting additional information. If a settlement can’t be reached, litigation is the path forward. This is often when plaintiffs need financial support, and our team at Milestone is here to work with attorneys to provide fair, simple-interest funding for their clients.

What Are the Expected Settlement Amounts?

For every claimant and their legal team, the most pressing question is often about the potential settlement amount. While there’s no single answer, understanding the available pathways and figures can help set realistic expectations. The U.S. government has established a framework to handle these claims, but the final payout for any individual depends heavily on their specific circumstances, including the severity of their illness, the duration of their exposure to the contaminated water, and the strength of their evidence.

Claimants generally have two routes for compensation. The first is a faster, voluntary program called the Elective Option (EO), which offers predetermined settlement amounts for specific conditions. The second is pursuing a traditional settlement through litigation, which can take longer but may result in a more substantial award that better reflects the full extent of a claimant’s damages. As an attorney, guiding your client through this decision is critical, as it involves weighing the benefits of a quick, guaranteed payment against the potential for a larger settlement down the road.

The Government’s $22 Billion Allocation

To address the harm caused by the water contamination, the government has projected it will pay out over $21 billion in Camp Lejeune claims. This significant allocation demonstrates a commitment to providing financial relief to the thousands of veterans, family members, and civilian workers affected. While a portion of these funds has already been distributed, billions are still available for families who are filing or awaiting a resolution.

This massive fund is a crucial piece of the puzzle, assuring claimants that resources exist to compensate them for their suffering. The Camp Lejeune settlement timeline is still unfolding, but this funding provides a clear financial backdrop for the ongoing legal process, giving hope to those still waiting for justice.

What is the Elective Option (EO)?

The Elective Option is an expedited path to compensation offered by the Department of Justice and the Department of the Navy. It’s designed to be a faster way to get a settlement without going through a lengthy court battle. To be eligible, you must have a specific qualifying illness and be able to prove you lived or worked at Camp Lejeune for at least 30 days between August 1953 and December 1987.

This option provides a structured payout based on the type of illness and the length of exposure. While the EO can provide financial relief much sooner than a traditional lawsuit, it’s a trade-off. Accepting an EO offer means forgoing your right to sue, and the amount may be less than what you could potentially receive from a jury. The official Camp Lejeune Justice Act claims page provides more detail on this program.

How Are Payouts Calculated?

Under the Elective Option, payouts are calculated using a tiered grid. The amount depends on two main factors: the claimant’s diagnosed medical condition and the duration of their exposure at Camp Lejeune. Tier 1 illnesses, like kidney cancer and liver cancer, qualify for higher amounts than Tier 2 illnesses, such as kidney disease and Parkinson’s disease. Payouts range from $100,000 to $550,000.

So far, the government has paid out over $421 million through this program. However, it’s important to note that only about 12% of the people who have filed claims are eligible for the EO. This means the vast majority of claimants will need to pursue their case through the standard litigation process to secure a settlement.

Why Are Claimants Rejecting Initial Offers?

While the Elective Option offers a quick resolution, many claimants and their attorneys are finding the initial offers too low. For families who have endured decades of pain, suffering, and staggering medical bills, the predetermined amounts often fall short of providing true justice. These offers may not adequately cover a lifetime of lost wages, ongoing medical care, and the profound personal losses associated with a debilitating illness.

As a result, many victims are choosing to reject these offers and continue with their lawsuits. They believe a trial or a negotiated settlement will result in an award that more accurately reflects their damages. This decision to hold out for a fair offer can create financial strain, but it’s often a necessary step to ensure a family receives the compensation they truly deserve.

What Are Bellwether Trials and Why Do They Matter?

For the thousands of Camp Lejeune claims that haven’t been resolved through the government’s Elective Option, the next major step involves something called bellwether trials. Think of these as test cases. A small, representative group of lawsuits are selected to go to trial first. The outcomes of these trials provide crucial insights for both sides, showing how juries are likely to respond to the evidence and arguments that are common across the larger group of cases. In massive and complex litigation like this, bellwether trials are essential for paving a path toward fair and efficient resolutions for everyone involved.

How Bellwether Trials Influence Settlements

The results of bellwether trials have a ripple effect that extends to every pending claim. These initial verdicts help establish a baseline for settlement negotiations. As legal news outlet Roll Call noted, these test cases, once decided, will help determine how much the government should ultimately pay to other victims. A favorable verdict for a plaintiff can put significant pressure on the defense to offer more substantial settlements to the thousands of other claimants waiting in the wings. This process helps create a framework for valuing claims, making widespread settlements more predictable and achievable without every single case needing to go to trial.

What is the Current Trial Timeline?

For claimants who rejected the initial Elective Option or whose claims were denied, the focus now shifts to the courtroom. The litigation is moving into a new phase, with the first trials expected to begin. According to legal sources tracking the litigation, lawsuits that don’t settle are slated to go to trial in the near future. This is a critical development for you and your clients, as the start of these trials signals real movement after a long administrative review period. The outcomes of these first cases will be watched closely, as they will set the tone for how the remaining claims are handled.

The Court’s Stance on Government Delays

Many claimants and their attorneys have expressed frustration with the slow pace of the claims process. The good news is that the federal judges overseeing the litigation are taking action. They have recognized the government’s attempts to slow things down and are actively pushing back. Recent rulings indicate that the court is committed to moving the trials forward and has shown little patience for what it views as delaying tactics. This judicial pressure is a positive sign for plaintiffs, as it helps ensure the government is held accountable and that these landmark cases proceed without unnecessary holdups, bringing claimants one step closer to a resolution.

What Challenges Do Claimants Face?

While the Camp Lejeune Justice Act was a landmark step, the path to compensation is filled with significant obstacles. For attorneys and their clients, the process has been far from straightforward. Claimants, many of whom are already battling serious health issues, are now facing a second fight for justice against bureaucratic delays and legal challenges. Understanding these hurdles is the first step in preparing for the long road ahead and ensuring your clients have the support they need.

Proving a Link Between Your Illness and Exposure

You might assume that with the government acknowledging the contamination, proving a link between an illness and the water would be simple. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case. The Department of Justice has been actively challenging the scientific basis of many claims, questioning expert opinions on the connection between the toxic water and specific diseases. Even for conditions like leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which the government’s own health agencies have linked to the contaminants, claimants are being forced to rigorously defend the connection. This turns each claim into a complex scientific debate, requiring extensive expert testimony and robust evidence that goes far beyond a simple diagnosis.

Dealing with Insufficient Documentation

The events at Camp Lejeune took place decades ago, and for many claimants, gathering the necessary paperwork has become a major roadblock. To file a successful claim, individuals must provide proof of their residency or service at the base during the contamination period, along with comprehensive medical records detailing their diagnosis and treatment. For many, these documents are lost to time, house moves, or simply were never kept. Tracking down military service records or old medical files can be a frustrating and time-consuming process, leaving many valid claims stalled while families search for the documentation needed to move forward.

Navigating Government Delays and Legal Hurdles

The sheer volume of claims has created a massive backlog. The legal process has been painfully slow, with many victims and their families feeling stonewalled by the very system that was designed to help them. These delays are not just procedural; they are a strategic hurdle. The government has been accused of dragging its feet, prolonging the discovery process and questioning established science, which only adds to the frustration. As victims wait for justice, the slow pace of the legal system creates immense uncertainty and emotional strain for those who have already suffered so much.

Managing Financial Pressure During the Wait

For claimants battling cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and other severe illnesses, time is a luxury they don’t have. The long wait for a settlement places an enormous financial strain on families who are already dealing with mounting medical bills and lost income. Tragically, many claimants are elderly and in poor health, and some have passed away while waiting for their cases to be resolved. This financial pressure can force families into accepting lowball settlement offers just to cover immediate expenses. When a lawsuit stretches on for years, having a financial safety net can make all the difference, allowing claimants to hold out for the fair compensation they deserve without sacrificing their financial stability.

How Pre-Settlement Funding Can Help

The legal process for the Camp Lejeune claims is moving slowly, and many claimants are feeling the financial strain. Waiting for a settlement can mean months or even years of uncertainty, making it difficult to cover daily expenses, especially while managing a serious health condition. This is where pre-settlement funding can offer a crucial lifeline. It provides plaintiffs with the financial stability they need to stay afloat without having to accept a low, early settlement offer out of desperation.

For attorneys, recommending a responsible funding partner can be a game-changer for your client’s well-being and the case’s outcome. When a client isn’t worried about paying their rent or medical bills, they can give you the time you need to secure the full compensation they deserve. This financial breathing room levels the playing field, allowing you to negotiate from a position of strength. At The Milestone Foundation, we provide this support with a transparent, nonprofit approach. If you or your client are struggling with the financial wait, you can apply for funding with a partner who puts plaintiffs first.

What Can You Use Litigation Funding For?

Pre-settlement funding is designed to help your clients cover essential living expenses while their case is pending. Think of it as a way to bridge the financial gap until their settlement arrives. The funds can be used for everyday necessities that become difficult to manage when you’re out of work or facing mounting medical costs. This includes things like mortgage or rent payments, utility bills, car payments, groceries, and childcare.

Most importantly, the funding can help cover ongoing medical treatments and co-pays that aren’t covered by insurance. For Camp Lejeune victims battling serious illnesses, this support is vital. It ensures they can continue receiving the care they need without adding more financial stress. Our mission is to provide this stability so plaintiffs can focus on their health and recovery, not their bills.

Why Pre-Settlement Funding is Risk-Free

One of the biggest questions attorneys and their clients have is about risk. What happens if the case isn’t successful? With non-recourse funding, the answer is simple: your client owes nothing. The advance is made against the future settlement, not the individual. If you don’t win the case, the funding does not have to be repaid. This structure removes the financial risk for the plaintiff entirely.

This is a critical distinction that separates ethical legal funding from a traditional loan. There are no monthly payments and no impact on your client’s credit. The repayment only happens as a single payment from the settlement proceeds if and when the case is won. This provides peace of mind and ensures that seeking financial help during a lawsuit won’t put your client into a deeper financial hole. We explain this process clearly to all our attorney partners.

How to Choose the Right Funding Partner

Not all funding companies operate with your client’s best interests at heart. Choosing the right partner is essential to protecting their settlement. Look for a funder who is transparent about their rates and terms. The most important factor to watch for is the interest rate. Many for-profit funders use high, compounding interest rates that can eat away at a settlement, leaving the plaintiff with very little in the end.

Always seek out a partner who offers low, simple interest that never compounds. A mission-driven, nonprofit funder is often the safest choice, as their priority is helping plaintiffs, not maximizing profit. Ask questions, read the contract carefully, and choose a company that works collaboratively with you, the attorney. A good funding partner understands their role is to provide support without getting in the way of your legal strategy.

Frequently Asked Questions

My client missed the August 2024 filing deadline. Is there any way they can still file a claim? Unfortunately, the Camp Lejeune Justice Act established a strict, non-negotiable deadline of August 10, 2024. If an administrative claim was not filed by that date, the legal window to seek compensation under this act has closed. This cutoff was written into the law, so there are no exceptions or extensions for late filers. The focus for all legal teams has now shifted to processing the hundreds of thousands of claims that were submitted on time.

Should my client accept an Elective Option (EO) offer or hold out for a larger settlement? This is a deeply personal decision that depends on your client’s specific circumstances. The Elective Option provides a fast, guaranteed payment for certain conditions, which can bring immediate financial relief. However, these predetermined amounts may not fully account for a lifetime of lost wages or pain and suffering. Choosing to pursue a lawsuit instead can take much longer, but it opens the door to a potentially larger settlement that is tailored to your client’s unique damages. It’s a choice between speed and certainty versus the possibility of a more comprehensive award.

What are the best first steps for finding documents to prove residency and medical history from so long ago? Gathering decades-old paperwork can feel overwhelming, but starting with a few key sources can help. For military records, the National Archives is the official repository for service documents like the DD Form 214. Your client can also access their VA health records through the VA.gov website. For proof of residency, think beyond official housing leases; old tax returns, utility bills, pay stubs from on-base jobs, or even school enrollment records for children can all serve as powerful evidence.

Now that the claims are filed, how long will it realistically take for my client to get paid? The timeline really depends on which path the claim takes. For the small percentage of claimants eligible for the Elective Option, the process is relatively quick, and payment could arrive within several months of acceptance. For everyone else whose case is moving toward a traditional settlement or trial, the wait will be much longer. The legal system is processing an enormous volume of cases, and it could easily be a year or more before widespread settlements are negotiated following the initial bellwether trials.

If my client receives pre-settlement funding, are they forced to accept the first settlement offer they get? Absolutely not. In fact, the purpose of ethical pre-settlement funding is the exact opposite. It provides your client with the financial stability to cover living expenses, which removes the pressure to accept a low offer out of desperation. This funding gives them the breathing room to wait while you fight for the full and fair compensation they deserve. The decision to accept or reject any settlement offer always remains entirely with the client and their attorney.

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.

By: Rachel McCarthy

The consumer litigation funding industry was built around a legitimate need: helping plaintiffs stay financially afloat while waiting for their cases to resolve. In theory, that support can level the playing field. In practice, however, many traditional funding companies have created a system that often prioritizes volume and profit over transparency and fairness. 

At The Milestone Foundation, we believe plaintiffs deserve clarity, fairness, and ethical treatment throughout the funding process. Here are three major issues we see with the traditional consumer litigation funding model. 

1. Different Plaintiffs Receive Different Rates from the Same Funding Company

One of the least discussed problems in the industry is the way pricing can vary depending on the law firm involved and the funding company’s policies. 

Many traditional litigation funding companies offer preferential interest rates or terms to firms that send them a high volume of cases or maintain long-standing business relationships. A plaintiff represented by a “preferred” law firm may receive significantly better terms than another plaintiff with a nearly identical case simply because their attorney does not generate as much business for the funding company, or they might be a lesser-known attorney.  

That creates a troubling imbalance. 

The cost of funding should be determined by objective factors tied to the case itself — not by backroom business relationships or referral volume. Plaintiffs are the ones ultimately repaying the funding, yet they often have no visibility into whether they are receiving competitive or equitable terms. 

In any industry that serves vulnerable consumers, consistency and fairness matter. Litigation funding should be no exception. 

2. Ambiguous Fees, Unnecessary Charges, Compounding costs

Another major issue is the lack of transparency surrounding fees and compounding costs. 

Many plaintiffs enter into funding agreements believing they understand the terms, only to discover additional servicing fees, processing fees, administrative charges, or recurring “case maintenance” fees buried in the contract. These costs can accumulate quickly over time and dramatically increase the repayment amount. 

Modern litigation funding operations are overwhelmingly digital. Documents are transmitted electronically. Status updates are often automated. Payment systems are streamlined. The operational cost of maintaining a file today is dramatically lower than it was a decade ago. 

So why are plaintiffs still being charged recurring servicing fees every six months? 

For many consumers, these fees feel less like legitimate operational necessities and more like mechanisms designed to maximize returns. This is on top of already egregious interest rates that compound monthly, quarterly, or bi-annually, and usually not in clear terms.  

Plaintiffs deserve straightforward pricing that clearly explains what they are paying for and why. Transparency should not be optional when someone is already navigating the financial and emotional stress of litigation. 

3. Aggressive Marketing to Plaintiffs Encourages Dependency Instead of Restraint

Litigation funding can serve an important purpose in the right circumstances. But it should be treated as a last resort — not a product aggressively pushed onto vulnerable individuals. 

Unfortunately, many traditional funding companies market directly to plaintiffs with relentless persistence. Advertisements, targeted outreach, and repeated solicitations often frame funding as an easy solution rather than a serious financial decision with long-term consequences. 

Some companies go even further, encouraging potential plaintiffs to view litigation funding as part of the normal litigation process from the very beginning. 

That approach is deeply concerning. 

Most plaintiffs are already dealing with financial pressure, medical treatment, uncertainty, and stress. Presenting funding as quick and effortless can incentivize borrowing before it is truly necessary. In some cases, plaintiffs may take advances they could have avoided entirely with better guidance or financial planning. 

Responsible funding providers should educate plaintiffs, not pressure them. They should encourage restraint, transparency, and informed decision-making — even when that means a consumer chooses not to take funding at all. 

A Better Standard for Litigation Funding 

Consumer litigation funding is not inherently harmful. When structured ethically, it can provide meaningful support to plaintiffs who genuinely need temporary financial relief. 

But the industry must evolve. 

Fair and consistent pricing, transparent fee structures, and responsible consumer practices should be the baseline — not the exception. 

Plaintiffs deserve a funding process built around their interests, not one driven primarily by referral relationships, hidden fees, or aggressive marketing tactics. 

 

By Julia Saunders & Rachel McCarthy 

As plaintiff litigation funding becomes more widely used, attorneys are increasingly searching for how to evaluate, compare, and responsibly recommend funding options for their clients. 

But the most valuable searches aren’t basic definitions—they’re deeper due diligence questions. Questions like: Which litigation funding companies are trustworthy? What are the risks of lawsuit funding? When should I recommend pre-settlement funding to a client? 

The answers to these questions can directly impact your client’s financial outcome and your case strategy. 

At The Milestone Foundation, we believe pre-settlement funding should be transparent, ethical, and aligned with access to justice. Below are six essential questions attorneys should be asking when evaluating plaintiff litigation funding providers. 

1. How do I know if a litigation funding company istrustworthy?

Attorneys frequently search “how to choose a litigation funding company” or “best pre-settlement funding companies for attorneys.” The answer starts with transparency. 

A trustworthy plaintiff funding company should provide: 

• Clear, upfront disclosure of all fees and repayment terms  

• Simple, easy to understand contracts with no hidden language 

• Straightforward explanations of total repayment scenarios  

• Open communication with both attorney and client  

If the terms are difficult to explain, they are likely difficult for your client to understand, and that’s a risk. Many plaintiff funding companies intentionally use confusing language so plaintiffs don’t fully understand the harm that they may be signing up for.  

The Milestone Foundation prioritizes full transparency at every step, ensuring attorneys can confidently review and explain funding terms without concern. 

 

2. What are the biggest red flags in pre-settlement funding agreements?

Search terms like “lawsuit funding risks” and “predatory litigation funding terms” are increasingly common, and for good reason. 

Key red flags include: 

• Compounding interest structures that grow rapidly over time  

• Excessive or unclear fees that inflate repayment amounts  

• No clear cap on what the plaintiff may ultimately owe  

• Contracts that obscure the true cost of funding  

These structures can significantly reduce a plaintiff’s net recovery. 

The Milestone Foundation eliminates these risks by offering straightforward terms and simple, non-compounding interest rates designed to protect plaintiff and attorney outcomes. 

3. Will pre-settlement funding affect my case strategy or settlement timeline?

One of the most common concerns attorneys search is whether litigation funding interferes with legal decision-making. 

A reputable pre-settlement funding company should: 

• Have zero control over litigation strategy  

• Never influence or pressure settlement decisions  

• Respect the attorney’s role as sole legal advisor  

Funding should relieve pressure—not create it. 

The Milestone Foundation operates with a strict non-interference model, ensuring attorneys retain full control while clients gain financial stability. 

4. When should I recommend pre-settlement funding to my client?

Attorneys often wonder, “when is pre-settlement funding appropriate for clients?..” They don’t want to approve funding if it will end up hurting their clients in the long run due to high interest rates. But often times, pre-settlement funding is a necessary option for a plaintiff in need.  

Pre-settlement funding should be considered when a client is facing real financial hardship, such as: 

• Difficulty paying rent or mortgage  

• Lack of transportation 

• Inability to cover groceries   

• Mounting utility bills or debt  

• Childcare  

In these situations, funding can help level the playing field—allowing clients to pursue fair case outcomes without financial desperation driving decisions. 

The Milestone Foundation exists to support clients in exactly these scenarios, providing relief that protects both the client and the case. 

5. How can I tell if a lawsuit funding company will take advantage of my client?

Queries like “is this lawsuit funding company legit” or “how to avoid predatory pre-settlement funding” highlight a major concern for attorneys. 

Warning signs include: 

• Vague or overly complex contracts  

• High-cost structures that are not clearly disclosed  

• Lack of attorney involvement or transparency  

• Difficulty getting clear answers to simple questions 

• Emphasis on how quickly funds will be released  

A simple rule: if you can’t quickly explain the terms to your client, that’s a red flag. 

The Milestone Foundation takes a different approach—offering clear agreements, transparent pricing, and direct collaboration with attorneys to ensure clients are protected. 

6. Are there alternatives totraditional litigation funding companies? 

Attorneys often search for “low-cost pre-settlement funding companies” in hopes of finding one that isn’t going to take advantage of their plaintiffs. Unfortunately, many traditional funders are the same. There are two alternatives that are not driven by profit and are looking to offer a better experience for plaintiffs.  

• The Milestone Foundation is the country’s only non-profit plaintiff funding company. It was built to provide a fair, transparent alternative to traditional high-cost funding models. 

• ClaimAngel is a platform that brings together many traditional funding companies to create a marketplace that offers a lower, standard rate for plaintiffs looking for funding. 

Conclusion 

The rise of plaintiff litigation funding has created both opportunity and risk. For attorneys, the key is not just finding funding but finding a funding partner that puts their client’s best interest first.  

By asking smarter questions about transparency, risk, timing, and ethics, attorneys can better protect their clients and strengthen case outcomes. 

The Milestone Foundation is committed to setting a higher standard; providing pre-settlement and post-settlement funding that supports plaintiffs without compromising their financial future. 

By The Milestone Foundation Team 

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. 

By Julia Saunders 

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  

• Food (groceries and essentials): ~$660–$850/month  

• Utilities (electricity, water, internet, gas, trash): ~$400–$750/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. 

 

By Rachel McCarthy

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 Milestone Foundation Operates as a Nonprofit 

Running a nonprofit involves more than just having a mission—it requires structure, governance, and accountability. 

Here’s how we put those principles into action: 

1. Mission-Driven 

Everything we do is designed to create measurable, meaningful impact for plaintiffs struggling to cover basic living expenses. We continually evaluate our operations to ensure they are effective and aligned with our goals. 

2. Responsible Financial Stewardship

We carefully manage our resources, prioritizing efficiency and sustainability. Funds are allocated thoughtfully to maximize the benefit to those we serve. 

3. Community and Donor Support

Our work is made possible by the generosity of donors and partners. Their support allows us to expand our reach and deepen our impact. 

4. Governance and Accountability

We are guided by a board and leadership team committed to ethical decision-making and organizational integrity. Regular reporting and transparency help ensure we remain accountable to our supporters and community. 

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. 

By Rachel McCarthy

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.  

By Julia Saunders

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. 

By Julia Saunders

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 HB 105: Comprehensive Non-Recourse Litigation Funding Reform

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.

State	Key Statute	Licensing Required	Interest Cap	Disclosure Required	Rescission Period	Foreign Funding Restricted
New York	A804-C / S1104A + S08808	Yes (Article 10)	25% of gross settlement cap	Yes	10 days	Pending
Ohio	HB 105 (Sections 1357.01-.08)	Registration	Referenced in existing Section 1349.55	Yes	Not specified	Yes
Oklahoma	OK Stat Section 3-801 et seq.	Registration	Reasonableness standard	Yes	5 days	Not specified
Nebraska	NE Rev Stat Sections 25-3301 to 25-3307	Registration	None specified	Yes	5 days	Not specified
North Carolina	NC GS Section 1-630 et seq.	Registration	None specified	Yes	3 days	Not specified

As these regulations take shape, attorneys can refer clients to The Milestone Foundation’s Partners for Justice program for ethical, simple-interest funding options that comply with evolving state requirements.

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)
• Goldberg Segalla, Analysis of New York Consumer Litigation Funding Act (A804-C / S1104A)
  https://www.goldbergsegalla.com/insights/ (industry legal commentary)
• Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026 Overview
  https://instituteforlegalreform.com/
• Bloomberg Law, NY Consumer Law Is First Step in Combatting Predatory Lending
  https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchange-insights-and-commentary/ny-consumer-law-is-first-step-in-combatting-predatory-lending
• California Legislative Information, AB-743 California Financing Law: lawsuit financiers
  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
• Kansas Legislature, SB 426 – Transparency in Consumer Legal Funding Act
  http://www.kslegislature.org/li/
• Ohio Legislature, HB 105 – Non-Recourse Litigation Funding Regulations
  https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/