Legal funding is a fairly new addition to the courtroom scene here in America, so it has quite a few critics who think that the change will ruin the American civil justice system, but these critics are being short sighted.
Why Legal Funding Critics Are Wrong
- Legal funding removes pressure: Some critics claim that third party contributions to cases pressures plaintiffs to seek high settlements in order to pay back their advances, but this couldnâ€™t be further from the truth. Legal funders provide settlement advances that only require repayment if the plaintiff receives a positive settlement or verdict. This actually removes pressure from the plaintiff and allows them to concentrate on whatâ€™s best for themselves.
- Legal funding avoids meritless cases: Critics have also argued that legal funding encourages frivolous lawsuits, but this argument doesnâ€™t make sense when you look closer. Legal funders would not get repaid if they funded lawsuits that were doomed to failure, so backers must be very careful what cases they help fund, otherwise they could quickly go out of business.
- Providing equal justice for all: Critics forget that many personal injury victims avoid civil lawsuits because they canâ€™t afford to take on big companies in court. Insurers, hospitals, and other responsible parties often have near unlimited resources backed by lots of money, but this shouldnâ€™t invalidate the harm they caused. Victims have a right to pursue justice, and legal funding evens the playing field.