Why Legal Funding Critics Are Wrong

Posted on January 20, 2016 by Dan Christensen

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 couldn’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 what’s best for themselves.
  • Legal funding avoids meritless cases: Critics have also argued that legal funding encourages frivolous lawsuits, but this argument doesn’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 can’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 shouldn’t invalidate the harm they caused. Victims have a right to pursue justice, and legal funding evens the playing field.

To find out more about how Beacon Legal Funding can help personal injury victims seek out justice for their injuries, keep following our blog, Twitter and Facebook.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.