Lots of people file lawsuits seeking compensation after being injured. These cases can drag on and meanwhile, life’s bills keep coming. Pre-settlement loans allow access to money before the long legal fight concludes. Companies provide cash upfront then take repayment plus fees from whatever settlement money comes later. This helps cover costs while waiting through the slow case process. But problems happen if your lawyer thinks getting these loans is an unwise or risky decision. Don’t attorneys have power to stop clients from taking this step? Do they have the final say here or not?
Why Attorneys Often Don’t Like These Funding Arrangements
There are a few key reasons why lawyers frequently argue strongly against advances on potential settlement payouts down the road. What arguments do attorneys make?
First, they want clients to maximize money received at the end. Loans reduce the total check by the borrowed amount plus very high interest and fees. Contingency fee lawyers directly lose out too taking home less from smaller settlements.
Additionally, the terms lenders offer on these products often benefit them excessively not the borrower. Extremely high compounding rates quickly accumulate oweing a lot fast. Critics call the industry’s practices predatory.
Another big concern is repayment risk if things go poorly. Applicants stay on the hook owing repayment even their case fails or stalls indefinitely without resolution. Being forced to pay tens of thousands lacking funds is scary. Uncertainty exists.
Some lawyers also can’t officially recommend specific pre-settlement lenders due to state bar association ethical guidelines. Referral fee and ownership bans aim to prevent conflicts of interest.
How Much Power And Influence Does An Attorney Really Have?
Given all these worries attorneys have about loans, could one adamant about opposing the idea outright prevent a client from securing funding anyway? It turns out counsel’s ability to intervene has limits grounded legally and logistically.
At core, it’s the plaintiff’s money from settlements minus fees owed. Lawyers argue the case on another’s behalf but don’t own the outcome. Blocking client-controlled choices could constitute ethical oversteps. Custom typically reigns here.
By similar token, lawyers mainly advise applying their expertise while plaintiffs decide directions aligning needs. Counsel shouldn’t override judgements made by who’s bringing the lawsuit when aboveboard legally. Communication fits better than mandates.
Additionally, plaintiffs form contracts directly with lenders listing repayment rules. What funding firms receive comes from settlement sums via separate plaintiff-lender deals attorneys aren’t party to. Once signed, advisers have little influence amending these set financing arrangements now binding their clients.
How To Handle Situations Where You And Attorneys Disagree
What should one do to handle tensions around pre-settlement loans between injured plaintiffs eager for funds now and reluctant counsel focused big picture? Some tips may help make progress:
Don’t conceal intentions from attorneys if considering pre-settlement loans. Transparency and openness pays when sharing case constraints and budget motivations driving the funding appeal. Surprising advisors risks relationships.
Ask attorneys to estimate timeline until resolution and potential settlement range based on case details. These projections assist assessing if loan repayment terms seem reasonably achievable or carry risks of shortfalls. Informed decisions help.
Research multiple offers to find trustworthy lenders with reasonable fees and flexible repayment options well-aligned with your state’s existing regulations. Vet each closely around transparency and avoiding surprises down the road.
Review contract terms about contingencies like total settlement falling short of loan totals oweing. What happens legally in scenarios a case concludes without funds to repay advances amidst dismissal or losing verdicts? Master the fine print.
Listen open-mindedly to all concerns from counsel about client interests so nothing gets missed when weighing everything independently. Ask clarifying questions to fully understand advisor perspectives about dangers that could arise. Input has value as decisions get made.
Tensions around pre-settlement loans stem from lawyers’ worries about bad outcomes vs the pressing budget needs plaguing injured plaintiffs mid-case. Who determines what happens in these common clashes? precision matters on advisor influence limits.
While attorneys only advise, transparency and communication best serve resolution. Weighing risks surrounding options to offset case burdens empowers plaintiffs assessing everything independently – no easy process when facing uncharted personal disruption from others’ actions. Yet people ultimately must drive their own case.