In August 2026, The New York Times published an investigation into the litigation funding industry that included a striking claim from a former salesperson. The former employee said each salesperson had a monthly goal of issuing $500,000 in advances, and that leadership pushed the team to call every attorney they worked with to see if anyone needed money. For plaintiffs, attorneys, and readers trying to separate fact from fiction, that account raises an important question: is aggressive selling the way consumer litigation funding actually works?

Apply for Funding

The answer is that it does not have to be. A sales-quota model built on cold calls to attorneys describes one approach to litigation funding, but it is not the only approach, and it is not how The Milestone Foundation operates. Understanding the difference matters for anyone who may need a lawsuit settlement advance while a personal injury case is pending.

What the Salesperson’s Account Actually Describes

According to the Times investigation, the former salesperson at a for-profit funder described an environment where issuing $500,000 in advances per month was a stated goal. The description went further: sales staff were asked to call every attorney in their network to see whether the attorney’s clients needed money. In that model, the driver is the quota, not the client’s need.

That type of pressure is a structural feature of for-profit consumer litigation funding. When a company earns more when it deploys more capital, it has a financial incentive to push advances, encourage larger amounts, and pursue volume even when a plaintiff may not need funding at all. The result can be a cascade of consequences: plaintiffs taking on more debt than they wanted, attorneys fielding repeated calls from funders, and a growing public distrust of an industry that exists to help people.

For plaintiffs, this matters directly. If a funder’s business model depends on issuing as many advances as possible, the first question a plaintiff should ask is whether the funder is recommending an advance because it helps the plaintiff or because it helps the funder meet a goal.

A Nonprofit Model Changes the Incentives

The Milestone Foundation is the United States’ first and only 501(c)(3) nonprofit consumer litigation funding organization. As a nonprofit, it has no shareholders demanding growth and no sales staff told to hit a monthly dollar goal in advances. It exists to provide fair, transparent funding to plaintiffs who need financial help while their cases move through the civil justice system.

That mission-driven structure changes how funding decisions are made. The Milestone Foundation does not pressure people to take money. It does not try to sell. It does not set quotas for issuing advances. When a plaintiff has a genuine need, funding can help cover living expenses, medical bills, and other essentials while litigation is pending or while they wait for settlement proceeds.

Simple Interest, Non-Recourse Funding, and No Hidden Fees

Transparency is central to how a nonprofit funder approaches the cost of funding. Pre-settlement funding from The Milestone Foundation carries 15% simple annual interest, and post-settlement funding carries 10% simple interest. Interest never compounds, and there are no hidden fees. Because the funding is non-recourse, plaintiffs owe nothing if they lose their case.

Compare that with the compounding interest rates and pressure-heavy sales models that have long been the subject of criticism in the consumer litigation funding industry. A former salesperson’s account of $500,000 monthly quotas is a reminder that some funders treat advances as a product to be sold, not a resource to be offered when it actually helps. The difference is not cosmetic: it shapes how much of a settlement a plaintiff ultimately keeps, which is exactly the kind of detail that gets buried when a funder is focused on hitting a number.

The Differences at a Glance

These structural differences show why a lawsuit settlement advance from a nonprofit can look very different from one issued by a for-profit company. When the incentives are aligned with the plaintiff, the decision to fund is driven by need and good judgment rather than a quota.

What Should Plaintiffs and Attorneys Look For?

For plaintiffs, the key question is not whether a funder is aggressive enough, but whether the funder is transparent about the terms. Before agreeing to any advance, ask for a clear explanation of the cost and the risks:

• Interest type: Is the interest simple or compounding? Simple interest keeps the total cost predictable, while compounding can quietly inflate what you owe.
• Total repayment: Does the agreement spell out the interest rate, the repayment amount, the timing, and every fee in plain language?
• Outcome risk: Is the funding non-recourse? Under a non-recourse arrangement, you owe nothing if you lose your case.
• Attorney involvement: Does the funder require your attorney to participate in the application, rather than bypassing counsel to move faster?
• Sales behavior: Is someone trying to convince you to take more money than you need? A fair funder should never need to pressure you.

A funder that can answer those questions plainly is a funder that does not need to rely on sales pressure. For a fuller walkthrough of how to evaluate providers, see our guide on how to vet litigation funding companies.

For attorneys, the same discipline applies to fiduciary duty. Recommending funding is a serious decision because it affects a client’s eventual recovery. An attorney-aligned funder will work with counsel, require attorney participation in the application, and never encourage a client to take more than they need. Attorneys evaluating funding options for clients can start with our ethical guide to pre-settlement funding to understand what responsible funding looks like in practice.

Why Attorney Oversight Matters

Attorney participation is required for a plaintiff’s funding application with The Milestone Foundation. That requirement is deliberate. Counsel helps confirm case information, evaluate whether funding is appropriate, and keep the arrangement aligned with the client’s interests and the litigation strategy. The attorney acts as a safeguard against the very kind of over-selling the Times investigation described.

That is a very different posture from a salesperson calling attorneys to see if anyone needed money. In a nonprofit model, the attorney is a partner in a careful decision, not a target for a monthly quota. For plaintiffs trying to understand what a responsible arrangement looks like, our article on settlement loan options with simple interest and our breakdown of lawsuit loans versus settlement advances explain the practical differences. And because concerns about owing money if a case fails are common, our explainer on non-recourse lawsuit funding walks through exactly how that protection works.

What Consumers Should Know Before Taking an Advance

Litigation funding can be a lifeline for plaintiffs facing pressure from medical bills, lost income, and everyday expenses while a case is pending. The industry exists for a reason. But the sales-quota allegations in the Times investigation are a reminder that not every funder puts the client first. A few habits can protect any plaintiff considering an advance:

• Talk to your attorney before contacting a funder, and make sure your attorney reviews any agreement.
• Ask for the interest rate in writing, and confirm it is simple interest that never compounds.
• Ask whether the funding is non-recourse and what happens if you lose the case.
• Confirm there are no hidden fees, application costs, or early-repayment penalties.
• Take time to compare the funder’s model to a comparison of legal funding companies beyond advertised rates, because the lowest headline rate is not always the lowest total cost.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it common for litigation funding companies to push plaintiffs to take advances?

Aggressive sales practices exist in parts of the for-profit litigation funding industry, and a former salesperson’s account of monthly quotas of $500,000 in advances illustrates that pressure. It is not universal, and it is not how a nonprofit funder operates. Plaintiffs should ask direct questions about interest rates, fees, and whether funding is non-recourse before accepting an advance.

Does The Milestone Foundation use sales quotas?

No. The Milestone Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit consumer litigation funding organization. It does not use sales quotas, does not pressure people to take funding, and does not try to sell. Funding is offered when a plaintiff actually needs it, with transparent terms.

What are the interest rates on the Milestone Foundation’s funding?

Pre-settlement funding carries 15% simple annual interest, and post-settlement funding carries 10% simple interest. Interest never compounds, there are no hidden fees, and funding is non-recourse.

Can a plaintiff owe money if they lose their case?

No. The Milestone Foundation’s funding is non-recourse, so a plaintiff owes nothing if they lose their case.

How can an attorney get involved in fair funding?

Attorneys who want a transparent, attorney-aligned funding partner for their clients can explore our Partners for Justice membership program, which supports ethical funding options.

Choose a Funder That Does Not Need to Sell

Aggressive sales quotas and cold calls to attorneys describe a model that treats litigation funding as a product to be pushed. The Milestone Foundation operates differently because it is a nonprofit with a mission: fair, transparent access to justice for plaintiffs. If you are evaluating funding for a pending case, talk to your attorney and consider whether the funder’s incentives are aligned with your interests.

Apply for Funding

When you are ready to explore a transparent option, contact us to learn how nonprofit funding works and whether it is right for your situation.