Trial is four months out, and the expert witness budget just doubled past what the firm's own credit line can cover.

Trial is four months out, the expert witness budget just doubled, and the firm's own credit line will not stretch that far without touching money earmarked for three other matters. The partner is not calling the funder they used two years ago. They are searching tonight, because the burn rate did not wait for a relationship to come to mind.

The burn rate creates the search, not the repeat rotation

A small bar of plaintiff and commercial firms already knows who funds cases. They send the matter they already decided to fund to the firm they already use. New counsel looking for a first facility is not in that rotation, and the burn rate does not pause while they figure out who else is out there.

The case is already on file, or about to be. The money is non-recourse, tied to the outcome, not the firm's credit line. Diligence is the case itself: merits, budget, recovery prospects, other liens already sitting on the proceeds. This is not a same-week wire. Case review takes as long as the file is complicated, and a firm that treats it like a bridge loan is misreading the product.

Mezzanine is a company and a cash-flow story. This leaf is capital against a contingent legal asset. Different collateral, different leaf on this hub entirely.

What a buyer is actually searching

They type litigation finance, legal funding, lawsuit funding for law firms, non-recourse legal capital. The trigger is a budget that will not last to trial, a client who cannot carry expert costs, or a firm unwilling to put more of its own line into one case. Last month the case was proceeding fine. This month the burn is the problem.

Consumer "lawsuit loan" queries are a different buyer and usually a different type of firm entirely. A firm that does not do that work should not bid as if it does. Attorney-side intent is the spend worth buying.

Lawyers who refer this work are LinkedIn. The attorney with a live case and a hole in the budget tonight is Google.

Objections we hear

We'll try it on our own dime. Until the dime runs out. The searcher is the firm that already did that math and came up short.

I don't want to share the recovery. Non-recourse capital is priced out of the recovery by definition. If that split is unacceptable, this was never the right product for the file.

I already know a funder. Most of the bar already knows one. The attorney searching is the one who does not, or who needs a second facility the first funder will not extend.

Sharing the case file with a funder can waive the privilege protecting it

Counsel who share merits memos and budget projections with a funder during underwriting often assume work-product protection survives the disclosure, since the funder is helping the case, not opposing it. Courts nationwide are split. Some preserve the protection under a common-interest theory, since funder and plaintiff both benefit from the outcome. Others have compelled production of funding-related communications, finding no privilege automatically extends to a third-party investor absent a carefully negotiated agreement.

Counsel who hand over a candid weakness analysis without a common-interest or confidentiality agreement built for that exact purpose can hand opposing counsel a roadmap to the case's own soft spots in discovery. Underwriting the funding and protecting the file are two separate jobs, and treating them as one can cost more than the funding itself was worth.

Ready to grow your pipeline?

Share a few details and we'll follow up with exactly how this works for a firm like yours.

Leave blank

Name *

Firm / Company *

Email *

Phone

Send

Who this is actually for

Funders who actually buy legal risk, with a case type they will name. The lead worth the spend is counsel with a real matter, a budget, and an outcome that can repay. A consumer googling a cash advance against a car wreck is not that lead unless that is genuinely a firm's book.

This page is a poor fit for a firm that originates by writing to plaintiffs or mining court dockets for open cases. That is not this campaign, and it is not how sourcing works here.

Lien priority on the proceeds, budget overruns, and whether a firm is funding one case or a whole book are the diligence, not a credit score. Ethical rules on who can talk to the client, and whether the funder sits behind counsel in that conversation, are real constraints, not marketing copy.

How the campaign runs

Google ads for attorneys searching litigation finance or legal funding, not one generic "lawsuit loan" campaign burning spend it was never built to win. Keywords are custom to the case types and facility sizes a firm actually funds.

Foundational work in parallel: the website, local directories, general search appearance, so the click lands on a firm that reads as real capital for counsel, not a cash-advance mill. A landing page may be included; a full website is quoted separately.

LinkedIn ads aimed at lawyers who refer this work, paid placements and lunch-and-learns, never a message sequence. No InMail. No connection sequences. No DMs. That channel does not run here, under any name.

Why we're not generalists

A generalist agency will not take the time to learn how this practice wins work. The file count is too small and the underwriting mechanics bore them. They want a big budget and a lot of traffic to a thin landing page. We run a tight campaign for a firm that closes fewer files at a higher value. That is the entire point of this page.

Most agencies cannot tell a commercial-litigation funder apart from a consumer cash-advance lender, and the bidding shows it. Lien priority, budget overruns, single-case versus portfolio, that vocabulary has to be on the landing page, not a brochure that could describe any funder in the market.

How fast this can run

Ads can be live in under a week. What slows it down is approval on your side, the keywords, the spend, the case types, the page the click lands on. Directories, bios, and a site a buyer will trust take longer. That trust layer is why the click stays. It is not the same thing as going live on search.

How this is billed

This is Visibility Program work, not the outbound program. You pay ad spend directly to Google and, where it runs, LinkedIn. ROI Wire bills a retainer that scales with that spend, not a flat project fee and not a percentage of closed files.

A landing page may be included at no additional cost. A full website build is always quoted and billed separately. Foundational services, copywriting, directory work, and the reputation surfaces counsel checks before trusting a firm with a live case sit under this track as the credibility layer, not a correspondence program running in parallel.

What is not included

We do not build a solicitation list of plaintiffs or of counsel. We do not write, mail, or phone firms who have not searched or asked. We do not fund the case ourselves. We do not pull court dockets to build a list. We make the firm findable. The firm does the work.

This is not mezzanine. That is a different page on this hub.