Legal Issues

In order to avoid usury laws (laws against charging excessive rates of interest), the funds you receive from a pre-settlement funding company will not be described as a "loan". For example, the advance might be described as a "cash advance", 'investment", or as "venture capital". Technically, as the contract is not to repay the amount received but is instead a promise to pay a portion of any eventual verdict or settlement (which may never occur), these amounts are not loans. No matter what happens, a person who receives pre-settlement funding keeps the full amount of the advance.
A Michigan court recently held invalid a lawsuit funding contract where the defendant's liability had been established, holding that as the plaintiff was certain to recover some amount of money the funding company's advance was no longer contingent, and thus that the plaintiff only had to repay the principal (without interest) under Michigan's usury laws. While other states may draw different conclusions from similar facts, it remains necessary that the amount be in some manner contingent - otherwise, it is a high interest loan.
An Ohio court similarly discharged a plaintiff's obligation under a lawsuit funding contract on the basis of a common law doctrine called "champertry" - a prohibition against the sale of a party's interest in a lawsuit. The court's rationale was that lawsuit funding company sought to profit from the injured woman's case, that lawsuit funding could create a disincentive to settle a case, where the plaintiff would have to pay the entire amount of the settlement to the finance company. A response to the first argument is that if it is acceptable for an attorney to profit from an injured person's case, why should it not be permissible for a finance company? A response to the second argument is that had the woman not received the funding, she may have been forced to settle the case for far less than its value.
Another concern might be that lawsuit funding might encourage plaintiffs to file frivolous lawsuits. This, however, does not consider the fact that lawsuit funding companies want to be repaid, and thus aren't likely to offer funds to plaintiffs who don't have strong cases justifying substantial awards. Similarly, it will often be in the strongest cases that a plaintiff is most in need of money before the conclusion of a lawsuit, and the absence of sources of funding can force premature and inadequate settlements.