Blog

Third-party litigation funding is “one of the very few remaining equalizers available to conservatives and ordinary Americans who simply want their day in court.” That’s according to a new report by Gene Hamilton, president of America First Legal, a nonprofit law firm he co-founded with Stephen Miller. The report explains third-party litigation funding (TPLF) and why it is “especially powerful for conservatives.”

Put simply, TPLF is non-recourse capital provided by sophisticated investors who have conducted rigorous due diligence and concluded that a claim has genuine merit. The plaintiff—a conservative activist, a small business owner, or an everyday American whose rights have been trampled—risks nothing beyond the claim itself. The funder assumes the entire financial risk in exchange for a negotiated share of any eventual recovery. This structure is revolutionary for meritorious cases that would otherwise die on the vine because the plaintiff cannot outlast deep-pocketed opponents who treat litigation as a war of attrition.

Like traditional contingency fees, TPLF does not manufacture lawsuits: it finances viable ones that would otherwise never see the light of day. Lawyers have bills to pay, families to support, and practices to sustain. The remote prospect of a victory years down the road is often not enough. TPLF bridges that gap. It empowers clients to secure top-tier counsel, allows lawyers to take on more righteous cases, and lets investors earn a return for putting real skin in the game, all without forcing the plaintiff to mortgage their home or their future.

TPLF is especially powerful for conservatives. It can fund lawsuits against woke corporations enforcing DEI mandates, challenges to Big Tech censorship and viewpoint discrimination, election-integrity litigation, and robust defenses and counterclaims against the left’s lawfare machine. The TPLF business model requires funders to focus on merit. They reject loser cases because funding them would be financial suicide. Market discipline is far more effective than any clumsy disclosure regime.

Hamilton points out that existing legal ethics rules are already sufficient to protect against litigation finance abuses. Forced disclosure would simply create “roadmaps that the radical left can, and will, exploit for harassment, boycotts, doxxing, and regulatory retaliation.” Instead, any funding from foreign adversaries should be banned, agreements can be provided to judges for confidential review, and existing ethics rules should be enforced.

The real crisis in our courts, Hamilton points out, is a result of bad judges—not third-party funders. Justice should not depend on who has the deepest pockets or the most lawyers. Litigation financing is an important tool that helps ensure meritorious cases can reach the finish line.