September 22, 2023
Editorial Disclaimer
This content is published for general information and editorial purposes only. It does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as such. Any mention of companies, platforms, or services does not imply endorsement or recommendation. We are not affiliated with, nor do we accept responsibility for, any third-party entities referenced. Financial markets and company circumstances can change rapidly. Readers should perform their own independent research and seek professional advice before making any financial or investment decisions.
Most people find themselves considering legal funding during one of the most stressful periods of a person’s life: after an accident that's left them unable to work or in the middle of a lawsuit that's dragging on longer than expected.
In these moments, trust becomes a deciding factor. Plaintiffs are not just evaluating numbers and contracts. They are deciding who they believe will treat them fairly when they are most vulnerable.
This article looks at why trust becomes so central to legal financing decisions and how you can tell the difference between companies that have earned that trust and those that are simply trying to exploit your urgency.
Taking out a lawsuit loan is fundamentally different from applying for a car loan or a mortgage. Unlike a bank loan or line of credit, lawsuit funding is usually sought after an injury or legal conflict has already created emotional and financial strain.
The vulnerability factor in post-injury financial decisions plays a significant role. When someone feels financially cornered, the desire to grab onto whatever feels like relief can outweigh careful evaluation.
Information asymmetry between funders and plaintiffs further complicates decisions. Legal funding contracts can be complex, and many plaintiffs are unfamiliar with non-recourse structures, fee schedules, or repayment mechanics. When one party understands the system far better than the other, trust becomes the main thing holding the whole arrangement together.
Finally, the non-recourse structure creates unique trust requirements. Because repayment depends on the outcome of the case, plaintiffs must trust that the funding provider has structured terms fairly and will not use unclear language to shift risk back onto them later.
When evaluating legal funding companies, plaintiffs often respond to psychological cues, whether they realise it or not. Some of these signals are legitimate indicators of reliability, while others are deliberately designed to manipulate.
Certain behaviours consistently signal higher risk in legal financing. Some warning signs show up so consistently with problematic funding companies that they're worth calling out directly.
Attorneys hold a unique position of trust during litigation, and their influence often extends beyond legal strategy.
In rare cases, attorney recommendations may be compromised, which is why transparency and open discussion remain essential safeguards.
Trust should never rely on instinct alone. It should be reinforced through deliberate verification.
Trust matters enormously in legal funding because you're making this decision at one of the hardest moments of your life. But trust shouldn't be blind. Informed trust must be earned through transparency, attorney involvement, and verifiable history.
Legitimate funding providers welcome scrutiny and encourage careful review. By slowing down and validating trust through due diligence, plaintiffs can protect themselves while making financial choices that support, rather than complicate, their legal journey.
When you seek legal financing, you are typically under significant emotional and financial strain from an accident or lawsuit. This vulnerability, combined with complex non-recourse contracts, makes trust a much more critical factor than with traditional lending.
Be cautious of any company that pressures you into a quick decision, is not transparent about its fees and repayment structure, or avoids communicating with your legal counsel. These are strong indicators that their terms may not be in your best interest.
An attorney's referral is a valuable starting point, but you should still perform your own due diligence. Ask your lawyer to walk you through the contract and feel empowered to compare the offer with others to ensure it's the right choice for your situation.
You can build informed trust by having your attorney thoroughly review the agreement, checking the company's rating and complaint history with the Better Business Bureau (BBB), and confirming they adhere to your state's regulations.
The most crucial step is to have your attorney review the contract in its entirety. They can identify potential issues, explain complex terms in plain language, and ensure the agreement protects your interests throughout your legal case.
Most people find themselves considering legal funding during one of the most stressful periods of a person’s life: after an accident that's left them unable to work or in the middle of a lawsuit that's dragging on longer than expected.
In these moments, trust becomes a deciding factor. Plaintiffs are not just evaluating numbers and contracts. They are deciding who they believe will treat them fairly when they are most vulnerable.
This article looks at why trust becomes so central to legal financing decisions and how you can tell the difference between companies that have earned that trust and those that are simply trying to exploit your urgency.
