Discuss an attorney funding question

What do South Dakota litigation funding regulations require?

South Dakota litigation funding regulations are an important part of an attorney’s review before a client accepts an advance. The practical starting point is to verify which statutes, court rules, and professional obligations apply to the particular agreement rather than assuming another state’s rules control. Then explain the repayment terms and preserve the client’s independent choice.

Attorneys should not treat “litigation funding” as one uniform product governed by one nationwide rulebook. Applicable requirements can depend on the agreement, the parties, the underlying claim, and where relevant conduct occurs. Before advising a client, check for South Dakota statutes or regulations that address the transaction, applicable court decisions, and professional-conduct duties that govern the attorney-client relationship.

This overview is not a determination that a particular South Dakota statute, rate cap, disclosure rule, registration requirement, or prohibition applies to every funding agreement. Do not infer the answer from a neighboring state’s law or from a funder’s marketing. Confirm the current primary authorities and the contract’s governing-law language for the matter in front of you. If a rule is unclear, obtain appropriate legal guidance before recommending or facilitating an agreement.

It also helps to distinguish a non-recourse advance connected to a claim from a conventional loan. Under non-recourse terms, repayment depends on a recovery, according to the agreement; a plaintiff should owe nothing if the case is lost when the funding is truly non-recourse. The agreement itself controls, so counsel should confirm how the terms address a loss, dismissal, settlement, and other case outcomes. A general overview of litigation funding describes how an advance may help plaintiffs pursue claims they otherwise could not afford to prosecute.^[1]

For a South Dakota matter, separate the legal question from the practical one. The legal question is what law and professional duties govern the proposed transaction. The practical question is whether the client understands the cost, timing, and effect on any eventual recovery. A careful answer to one does not replace the other. Even where the agreement appears permissible, the client still needs a clear explanation of its terms, and counsel still needs to protect independent legal judgment.

Also distinguish the stage of the claim. A pre-settlement advance is made while a case remains unresolved, while a post-settlement advance relates to a settlement that has been reached but may not yet have been disbursed. Those situations can raise different timing and repayment questions. For example, a pending settlement may still involve liens, releases, court approval, or administrative processing. Do not assume that rules or contract terms for one stage answer questions about the other.

What do South Dakota litigation funding regulations mean for a specific agreement?

South Dakota legal conclusion. The authorities reviewed here do not establish one funder-specific licensing or rate-cap rule for every consumer litigation-funding agreement. South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) 54-3-1.1 addresses written agreements on interest and generally does not impose a maximum or usury restriction unless another statute applies. SDCL 54-3-4 supplies a default rate when no rate is specified, and SDCL 54-3-16 sets the Category C rate at 12%. These provisions should not be read in isolation or treated as a ruling that any particular agreement is enforceable.

Agreement structure and public policy still matter. In McKellips v. MacKintosh, 475 N.W.2d 926 (S.D. 1991), the South Dakota Supreme Court recognized champerty concerns and held a fact-specific recovery-share financing agreement void as against public policy. South Dakota Supreme Court Rule 1.8(e), as amended by Rule 25-06 effective March 5, 2025, addresses limited financial assistance by lawyers to indigent clients; it does not create a third-party funder licensing rule. Counsel should analyze the signed agreement, repayment source, recovery-share or assignment language, and client-interest implications before drawing a conclusion.

A 2025 Senate Bill 175 proposal would have created a dedicated litigation-finance framework, but a bill proposal is not current codified law. See the South Dakota Legislature bill record and verify the current status before relying on it. For primary sources, review SDCL 54-3-1.1, SDCL 54-3-4, SDCL 54-3-16, the McKellips opinion search, and the Rule 25-06 amendment order. This is general information, not legal advice; classification can change with the facts, contract terms, applicable law, and later authority.

How can counsel research South Dakota litigation funding regulations?

Start with a defined question, not a search for a single label. An agreement may be described as a lawsuit advance, pre-settlement funding, or consumer litigation funding. Those labels alone do not establish the legal treatment. Read the full contract and identify its structure, repayment trigger, pricing method, and the roles played by the client, attorney, funder, and any intermediary.

1. Identify the transaction. Is money advanced against a pending claim, against an already resolved settlement, or for another purpose? Is repayment limited to proceeds from the case? What does the agreement say happens if there is no recovery?
2. Map the relevant connections. Note where the plaintiff lives, where the claim is pending, where the agreement is signed or performed, and which law the contract selects. These details help counsel decide what sources to review; they do not by themselves answer the choice-of-law question.
3. Search primary legal sources. Check current South Dakota statutes and administrative rules for provisions that could apply to the transaction, and search relevant court decisions. Verify the effective date and whether the authority addresses consumer funding, a different type of financing, or another subject.
4. Review professional duties. Consider the applicable rules of professional conduct and court requirements concerning client communication, confidentiality, conflicts, settlement authority, and handling of proceeds. Confirm the current rule text rather than relying on a summary.
5. Document the analysis. Record what sources were checked, the agreement version reviewed, unresolved issues, and what was explained to the client. Revisit the analysis if the contract changes or the case moves into a different posture.

Make the research reproducible. Save the citation or official text for each authority relied on, note the date it was checked, and state which contract provision made the authority relevant. A search result excerpt or an article about another state is not a substitute for the operative text. If a statute has definitions, exceptions, or an effective date, read those parts along with the section that initially appears relevant. Likewise, an older decision may have been limited or affected by a later enactment.

For a practical issue list, identify each question before drawing a conclusion: Is the client a consumer? Is the advance tied to a claim or an already fixed settlement? Does repayment arise only from proceeds? Does the contract assign rights or create a lien? Which party has duties to communicate or remit funds? Does a provision affect settlement authority or confidential information? The answers help determine what legal materials are worth checking, while preventing an overly broad conclusion based only on the agreement’s title.

Where the governing-law provision points outside South Dakota, do not ignore the forum and the transaction’s connections. The clause is an important fact, not a complete answer to every question. Counsel can consider whether more than one jurisdiction’s law or professional rules might matter and seek a jurisdiction-specific opinion if that analysis is outside the firm’s competence. The client-facing explanation should identify what remains uncertain instead of presenting an unsettled issue as settled.

For a broad discussion of ethical funding choices, attorneys can also review The Milestone Foundation’s attorney resources and its overview of litigation funding for attorneys. Those resources do not replace checking current South Dakota authority for a specific case.

What should attorneys compare in a South Dakota funding agreement?

After checking the legal framework, read the economics line by line. A headline rate can hide whether the amount compounds, how often charges accrue, whether fees are added, and when repayment is due. Ask the funder for a written payoff illustration at realistic time intervals and use the actual contract terms in the calculation.

Do not assume two offers are comparable because they quote the same annual percentage. A simple-interest rate applies to the original advance without adding accumulated interest back into the principal. Compound interest adds accrued interest to the balance used to calculate later interest. The contract may also have fees or a minimum charge, so calculate the actual projected payoff rather than relying on the rate alone.

A small hypothetical can make the difference concrete. If a contract charged 15% simple annual interest on a $1,000 advance, with no separate fees and a full year of accrual, the interest for that year would be $150 before considering any contract-specific details. At two years on the same original principal, the simple-interest amount would be $300. Under compounding, interest already accrued would be included in the balance used for later interest, so the result would differ. These figures are an illustration of arithmetic only, not a quote, legal conclusion, or prediction of any client’s payoff. Always use the signed agreement’s formula, accrual dates, and payment rules.

Ask for more than one payoff date. A client may need to compare an early resolution with a longer case, and the precise date a charge begins can matter. The illustration should show the amount advanced, accrued interest, all fees, credits or payments, any applicable ceiling, and the total due. If the written calculation cannot be reconciled to the contract, ask for a corrected explanation before the client signs. If a payoff is calculated by a tiered schedule or another formula, request each step in the calculation rather than a single total.

The Milestone Foundation describes its nonprofit funding terms as 15% simple annual interest for pre-settlement funding and 10% simple interest for post-settlement funding; interest does not compound, and it states that there are no hidden fees. Its funding is non-recourse, and its total repayment is subject to a 2X cap. Clients and attorneys should review the specific written agreement for all terms and confirm fit with the client’s circumstances. Learn about fair pre-settlement funding and frequently asked funding questions.

How do simple and compound interest affect a client’s repayment?

The distinction is easiest to explain by keeping the principal visible. With simple interest, the interest is calculated on the original amount advanced. If the client receives $2,000, a simple annual rate of 15% would mean $300 in interest for a full year under a basic illustration, before any agreement-specific timing or cap provisions. The original $2,000 remains the base for calculating interest. A compound formula instead adds accrued interest to the balance before calculating interest for a later period. That can increase the payoff more quickly as time passes.

These examples are not interchangeable with the actual contract. Read whether accrual is daily, monthly, or annual; whether a partial year is prorated; whether there is a minimum period; and whether the balance changes after an additional advance. A client who receives a second advance may have one balance with a separate start date, rather than one simple calculation on the total amount. Request a written statement that separates each advance and each charge.

Then explain what a cap does and does not do. A cap can limit total repayment under the terms stated in the agreement, but counsel should confirm the amount included in the cap, when it applies, and whether it changes in a no-recovery outcome. Do not describe a cap as a guarantee of a particular net recovery. The client’s eventual net proceeds also depend on the settlement or award, case expenses, liens, fees, and other obligations.

For comparison, The Milestone Foundation is the first and only nonprofit consumer litigation funding organization. Its stated pricing distinguishes pre-settlement funding at 15% simple annual interest from post-settlement funding at 10% simple interest; interest never compounds, funding is non-recourse, and the organization states that it has no hidden fees. These terms should be weighed against the client’s needs and the written agreement, not treated as a promise that funding will be suitable for every case.

How can counsel support informed client choice?

Funding can help with living expenses or other needs while a case proceeds, but it is not appropriate for every client or every claim. The client should understand the cost and alternatives before deciding. Explain that an advance is not a guarantee of a particular settlement, verdict, or timeline. Avoid language that suggests the client must borrow, that accepting funding will improve the case, or that a specific recovery is assured.

Attorney participation is required in the Foundation’s plaintiff funding application process. That does not mean an attorney should decide for the client whether to accept an advance. The client retains the decision about settlement, subject to the applicable law and representation agreement, and counsel should not let a funder control litigation strategy. For information on the Foundation’s approach, see nonprofit litigation funding and its attorney services and resources.

When discussing an offer, give the client a plain-language explanation of the amount received today, projected payoff under different case durations, and what happens in both recovery and no-recovery scenarios. Provide time for questions. Where appropriate, compare the offer with non-funding options the client may have, such as payment arrangements or other available resources, without assuming those options are accessible.

A useful discussion can follow a consistent sequence. First, ask what expense the client is trying to address and whether the need is immediate or can be handled another way. Second, review how much money the client would actually receive after any deductions, and whether the amount requested is limited to the need described. Third, compare likely payoff figures at more than one date. Fourth, explain the possible effect on net proceeds without predicting the value or timing of the case. Finally, ask the client to explain the terms back in their own words. That last step can reveal whether a phrase such as “non-recourse” or “2X cap” has been misunderstood.

For example, a client may hear “no repayment if you lose” and assume that no money can be owed in any other circumstance. Counsel should explain the precise no-recovery provision and distinguish it from a low settlement, a dismissal followed by an appeal, or a dispute about proceeds. Do not give a broader assurance than the agreement supports. Likewise, make clear that an advance does not establish a case’s value and does not obligate the client to reject or accept a settlement.

A funding conversation should leave the client with space to decide. Provide the agreement and payoff illustrations in a format the client can review, set a follow-up time if questions remain, and avoid tying legal advice to a funding decision. If the client declines, the representation should continue on its agreed terms. If the client accepts, document the version signed and the client’s instructions about any required next steps.

What should counsel review about disclosure and confidentiality?

Funding review can involve sensitive information. Before sending case materials, determine what the funder requests, whether the client has authorized sharing, and how the agreement treats confidential information. Consider applicable privilege, work-product, privacy, and professional-responsibility issues; do not assume that a confidentiality clause alone resolves them.

Read any provision that purports to require notice, consent, access to case updates, or payment from settlement proceeds. Clarify who communicates with the funder and what information may be shared. The client should understand how the funder’s rights operate without giving the funder control over legal strategy or settlement decisions. If a term creates uncertainty about counsel’s duties or the client’s control, pause and resolve it before proceeding.

Use a minimum-necessary approach when preparing any permitted disclosure. Determine whether the requested information can be supplied through a factual summary or a limited set of documents rather than an entire file. Exclude unrelated medical, financial, or personal details where they are not needed for the stated review. Confirm the recipient, transmission method, retention practices, and any limits on onward disclosure. The client should know what is being sent and why, and the file should reflect the client’s authorization and counsel’s analysis.

Also examine the agreement’s information and update provisions over the life of the matter. Does the funder expect routine status reports, notice of a settlement offer, or copies of correspondence? What happens if the case strategy changes? Which requests go through counsel, and which may be directed to the client? A clear process can reduce inadvertent disclosure and prevent the client from receiving communications that appear to pressure a litigation decision. Explain any limits on what counsel can disclose and do not promise confidentiality beyond what the contract and applicable duties allow.

What red flags call for closer review?

• The written payoff is difficult to reproduce or changes under unclear formulas.
• Interest compounds or charges continue to grow without a clear explanation of the total possible repayment.
• Fees appear in the contract but were not disclosed during the discussion.
• The agreement appears to require repayment even if the client receives no recovery, despite being described as non-recourse.
• A term seems to influence settlement decisions, case strategy, or the attorney-client relationship.
• The funder requests more confidential information than appears necessary, or the client has not authorized its disclosure.
• There is pressure to sign quickly, borrow more than needed, or accept a particular outcome.
• The funder will not provide a complete agreement or an example payoff calculation in writing.

A red flag is a reason to investigate, not a conclusion that a term is unlawful. Compare the wording with current law and the client’s circumstances. Counsel should be especially careful not to describe a product as low-cost, risk-free, or legally approved without a clear basis for that statement.

Respond to a concern in a documented sequence. Identify the exact term; request a written explanation or revised calculation; compare that answer with the rest of the agreement; and decide whether the issue can be resolved without compromising the client’s interests. If the response changes the economics, update the payoff comparison and let the client review it. If the issue concerns legal authority, confidentiality, or control, do not treat a sales representative’s explanation as a substitute for independent legal analysis.

Watch for inconsistencies across documents, too. An application form, disclosure, term sheet, and final agreement may describe different amounts, dates, or fees. Check that the client understands which document controls and whether other documents are incorporated. Keep a copy of the final set rather than relying on a summary email. If the funder changes a material term after the client’s review, return to the issue with the client instead of assuming the earlier explanation still applies.

What practical checklist can attorneys use before a client signs?

1. Obtain the complete agreement and all incorporated documents.
2. Identify the funding type, amount, disbursement timing, and repayment source.
3. Calculate the expected payoff at multiple case durations using the contract’s actual formula.
4. Confirm whether interest is simple or compound, identify every fee, and check any repayment cap.
5. Read the no-recovery provision and verify that it matches any non-recourse representation.
6. Check current South Dakota statutes, regulations, cases, and professional rules relevant to the transaction; confirm any choice-of-law issue.
7. Review settlement, lien, proceeds, confidentiality, and case-control clauses.
8. Explain costs, uncertainty, and client alternatives without recommending that the client borrow or accept a settlement.
9. Give the client time to ask questions and make an independent decision.
10. Keep a record of the agreement version and the explanation provided.

For a file-ready review, add a short note that identifies the contract date and version, the authorities checked, any unresolved legal question, and the person responsible for follow-up. Record the assumptions behind each payoff estimate, including the date used and whether it assumes an additional advance. Preserve the client’s written authorization for information sharing where applicable. This record makes it easier to revisit the advice if the case lasts longer than expected or the funding terms are amended.

Attorneys looking for a nonprofit option can review the funding application information with the client and contact the Foundation with questions. The Milestone Foundation is the first and only nonprofit consumer litigation funding organization, and its mission is to offer a fair, transparent alternative to traditional for-profit funders. A client should still compare the actual contract terms and decide whether funding is right for them.

Review the funding application process

Frequently asked questions about South Dakota litigation funding

Does South Dakota have a specific rate cap for consumer litigation funding?

Do not assume a rate cap applies or does not apply without checking current South Dakota primary legal sources and the specific agreement. Review any law that may govern the transaction and seek legal guidance if the scope or application is uncertain.

Is a litigation funding advance the same as a traditional loan?

Not necessarily. A non-recourse advance may be repayable only from case proceeds, while a conventional loan generally has different repayment obligations. The agreement’s terms, not its marketing label, show what the client owes in each possible outcome.

Can a funder make a client accept a settlement?

Attorneys should carefully review contract language about settlement and case control and protect the client’s informed decision-making. Do not accept terms that appear to give a funder control over legal strategy or the client’s settlement choice without first resolving the issue under applicable law and professional duties.

What should a client understand before taking an advance?

The client should understand the amount received, how the balance is calculated, the projected payoff, all fees, what happens if there is no recovery, and whether the agreement limits repayment. The client should not feel pressured to borrow or settle.

Ready to discuss an ethical funding option?

South Dakota litigation funding regulations should be checked against current law and the terms of the individual agreement. A careful review of pricing, repayment, client choice, and confidentiality helps attorneys discuss funding responsibly while keeping the client’s interests at the center.