Illinois Lawsuit Loan Sharks? Stop This Latest Trial Lawyer Bill

From the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform…

Illinois’ reputation for lawsuit abuse hurts our jobs climate.

The last thing we need are measures in Springfield that would encourage trial lawyers to file more lawsuits.

So then why are our state legislators considering a law that would do just that?

This wrongheaded bill (S.B. 3322) would legimitize a new “lawsuit lending” industry in Illinois — creating new “lawsuit loan sharks” who loan money to help people file lawsuits.

More Illinois lawsuits? That’s the last thing we need.

This bill has passed the Senate and is pending in the State House: click here to email your state representatives today to oppose the “Lawsuit Loan Shark” bill.

A recent Harris survey of major employers found that Illinois has the sixth-worst lawsuit climate in America.

The majority of survey respondents also said a state’s lawsuit climate affects important decisions, such as where to locate or do business.

Right now, Illinois needs more jobs. We certainly don’t need more lawsuits.

Click here right now to help us stop the “Lawsuit Loan Shark” bill

Aside from encouraging more lawsuits in Illinois, this bill raises several additional questions:

  • Are trial lawyers and plaintiffs making decisions about their lawsuits based on the interest of the law — or the interest of getting a return for their lawsuit lender?
  • Is the bill aimed at actually helping injured parties — or creating more profits for trial lawyers and lawsuit lenders?
  • Will this legislation encourage inflated lawsuit settlements?

So many ethical questions about a bill clearly designed to benefit trial lawyers and newly-created lawsuit lenders.

We need to make sure this bill gets stopped in the State House.

Remember: click here to email your state representatives today to tell them to say “NO” to the “Lawsuit Loan Shark” bill.

The Institute for Legal Reform is an advocacy group working to end lawsuit abuse. ILR is a national campaign of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, with the critical mission of making America’s legal system simpler, faster, and fairer for everyone.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Tags: Economy, Jobs, Lawsuit, Springfield

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I will be the first to admit that the legal environment is broken in this country. I believe that there are pros and cons on the lawsuit loan industry. I have included two points of views; Pro: http://www.lawleaf.com/lawsuit-funding/media-coverage.html
    Con: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/business/17lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all

    Point of view of Law Leaf: It protects the injured party from committing to a lower settlement offer that pays a fraction of what a case is worth. This is because most people are financially incapable of being out of work and paying their bills. They also indicate throughout the site that this should be a last option;

    Point of view from NY Times: The rates are high and when a case settles the borrower will pay exorbitant fees on the back end.

    My point of view: If you don't need it don't do it. This type of loan isn't for someone that needs extra pocket change, its for someone that can't afford to wait for a settlement and may be forced to settle for less.

    Insurance Industry: I have dealt with insurance companies in the past and I can honestly say they are never interested in settling early and will always try to pay the minimum on any claim. I recently had my home flooded and my own insurer nickeled and dimed me throughout the process. It took me almost 6 months to get paid on a policy that I was paying on for years. They are certainly positioned to call the shots especially against someone that can't even afford to keep the lights on.

    I did some research on the success of these types of companies. There is no question this is a profitable business and something that I'm even considering investing in. However, not all companies have been successful. There are at least 4-5 companies alone that went out of business in the last year because they ran out of money because they invested in bad cases. This is because if the client loses their case they don't have to pay back the loan.

    I would seriously reconsider opposing this bill.

Leave a comment