The opponents of consumer legal funding often say that consumers do not need this product. That they have several other options which they can tap into, and as such, are trying to put up barriers through the legislative process in limiting consumers’ ability to have access to this vital piece of financial stability.
What is interesting is that the barriers that are being put up are designed so that consumers will not have access to this product at a time when they need it most. There are pieces of legislation being introduced across the country that would fully ban the product. Other pieces of legislation would make it cost-prohibitive for companies to offer the product, thereby banning the product and not making it available to those who need it most.
A recent CNBC.com report it found the following:
- 20% of American workers run out of money between checks
- 68% do not have money set aside for emergencies
- 51% have no emergency savings at all
- 45% financially stressed
And, thanks to inflation, the average family will need $5,200 more this year than last just to meet basic needs. This is on top of the fact that the average personal injury case takes between 1 to 3 years to settle.
So I ask again, with the need for this product greater than ever, why are the opponents of the industry being so aggressive in wanting to limit this product? It is to do one thing: force consumers to accept low-ball settlements so they can increase their bottom line.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. once said, “Equal justice under law…it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists…it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status.”
Consumer legal funding gives consumers the ability to receive “Equal justice under law,” and get a fair and just settlement, as opposed to one that is forced upon them because of their financial circumstances.