How can litigation lending be used, and what is meant by third-party litigation or legal fee financing? The author explains the territory.

The following article looks at the risks and rewards of litigation lending in family cases. Among the details, the article explains what third-party litigation or legal fee financing is, distinguishing it from traditional debt or legal aid. Such litigation funding, the author writes, prevents clients from being underrepresented or delayed by financial hurdles.

The author of this article is George Williamson (main picture), founder and CEO of Level, a legal lender specialising in family law and probate. 

The editors are pleased to share these opinions; the usual editorial disclaimers apply to views of outside contributors. To comment, email tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com and amanda.cheesley@clearviewpublishing.com

The family court system is in crisis: severe backlogs, disproportionate interim funding disputes, and delays stretching from weeks into months. Cases have grown increasingly complex, with more hearings than five years ago.

Recent judgments expose the dysfunction. In DSD v MJW, £13,000 ($17,438) was spent pursuing £1,500 – £2,000 “costs of almost ten times the recovery” Deputy District Judge Hodson said (i.e. costs of almost 1,000 per cent of the recovery). In LI v FT, a holiday dispute generated £39,000 in legal fees (double the value of the disputed holiday or a cost of 200 per cent against the disputed amount). For parties without control of marital assets, traditional court routes prove expensive and vulnerable to strategic delay. Legal fee loans provide immediate funding at fixed costs, without court delays or giving the opposing party control of the weaker party's purse strings.

The legal aid shortfall
Legal fee lending has surged following the near-total withdrawal of legal aid in family law, now limited to urgent cases such as domestic violence or homelessness. Legal fee loans fill this gap.

How legal fee loans differ from litigation funding
Legal fee loans differ fundamentally from third-party litigation funding. Traditional litigation funders pay case costs in exchange for a share of damages, if the case fails, they lose their investment.

Family law loans are Financial Conduct Authority-regulated credit agreements. Clients borrow to cover legal fees and repay from settlement proceeds, retaining full ownership of their settlement. Solicitors are paid as work is completed, with repayment linked to case resolution.

Principles of responsible lending
At the heart of ethical family law lending are responsibility and transparency. FCA-authorised lenders operate under strict Consumer Duty requirements, which require firms to act in good faith, avoid foreseeable harm, and enable customers to pursue their financial objectives. This translates into practice through:

Products designed for purpose: Legal fee loans are structured specifically for family law clients, with repayment linked to receipt of settlement rather than requiring monthly payments during proceedings (which is a typically illiquid process).

Fair value and transparency: Clear terms with no hidden fees. FCA regulations require rigorous proportionality assessments, loans are typically approved only where anticipated settlements exceed loan values by three to four times. Data from Level’s loan book, across thousands of loans over eight years, shows the average repaid loan represents less than 7 per cent of the final settlement value.

Clear communication: Terms presented in plain language at the right time. Clients must receive independent legal advice before signing, for their protection, ensuring that they fully understand their obligations.

Client-first approach: Loans serve the client's benefit exclusively; law firms receive no commissions or financial incentives.

Accessible support: Ongoing assistance throughout proceedings without unreasonable barriers, recognising that circumstances may change during lengthy litigation.

These aren't optional extras; they're regulatory requirements ensuring responsible lending that delivers good customer outcomes.

Why fairness is critical
Family disputes often involve significant financial imbalances. One party controls marital assets, while the other faces immediate difficulty funding representation, a disparity that can be weaponised.

Sir Nicholas Francis, a retired High Court judge, observed in his March 2025 Financial Remedies Journal interview: "coercive spouses continue the coercion and the bullying by the control of money post-separation." (i) Court-based interim funding can become a platform for precisely this. Hostile spouses exploit processes through deliberate non-compliance, delay tactics, and forced enforcement, withholding essential support while creating pressure through months of contentious correspondence and contested hearings.

This may prove particularly damaging for parties who already endured years of financial control, who risk being forced into unfair settlements without independent access to funds.

Legal fee loans break these controlling dynamics immediately, providing financial independence without requiring the financially stronger party's cooperation or months of contested proceedings.

Legal fee loans vs court-based funding: The economics
LSPOs appear logical, the other party pays your legal fees during proceedings. The reality can be more complicated.

In DSD v MJW [2025] EWFC 119 (B), £13,000 was spent pursuing £2,000. Deputy District Judge Hodson observed that costs were "almost ten times what would have been the recovery" and concluded the application was "thoroughly cost disproportionate." (ii) In LI v FT [2024] EWFC 342 (B), a holiday dispute generated £39,000 in legal fees. (iii) Practitioner experience suggests LSPO applications typically cost £25,000 to £30,000 per side.

Small claims comparison
Using DSD v MJW figures, a legal fee loan of £1,500 to £2,000 at 24 per cent would generate £360 to £480 in interest over 12 months – versus actual legal costs of £13,000 representing 650 per cent to 867 per cent of the disputed amount.

Larger cases
The comparison proves instructive. A £100,000 legal fee loan at 24 per cent, drawn in quarterly tranches, costs approximately £15,000 in interest over 12 months. London practitioners report that LSPO applications of this kind typically cost around £30,000 per side, i.e. £60,000 combined (i.e. 60 per cent of the LSPO claim) and take months.

Living expenses
A £36,000 loan drawn monthly costs £4,680 in interest; an equivalent maintenance pending suit hearing would need to cost less than £1,950 plus VAT per side.

Understanding the risks
Extended proceedings present the primary borrower risk. If a loan runs beyond 30 months it may become more expensive than an LSPO. However, using Level's loan book data, over 90 per cent of loans are repaid by month 24, with costs remaining well below court applications.

Repayment comes from settlement proceeds, so clients face no immediate financial burden.

As Sir Nicholas Francis noted in the same interview: "How much court time would be freed up if we didn't have all these endless arguments over interim maintenance and funding of costs?" Legal fee loans avoid contested interim applications entirely, providing speed, certainty, lower costs in most cases, and no added conflict – helping to free judicial resources while often reducing overall costs to matrimonial assets.

Summary
Recent judicial observations have rightly focused attention on the costs and accessibility of family law funding. The evidence warrants reflection.

When court applications cost 10 times the recovery sought, or £60,000 to secure £100,000 in funding, it is crucial to look at cheaper alternatives. When hostile spouses weaponise interim funding processes through delay and non-compliance, vulnerable parties suffer harm. When disproportionate interim disputes consume judicial resources, families across the system face longer delays.

Legal fee loans may address these challenges directly. They provide immediate funding at transparent costs, in most cases significantly less than court applications. They break controlling dynamics decisively, without months of contested proceedings. They operate under rigorous FCA regulation, with proportionality assessments ensuring fair value.

The choice between funding mechanisms should consider case-specific factors. But the comparative evidence suggests that legal fee loans may represent an economically rational and dignified route to accessing justice in many cases.

As Deputy District Judge Hodson observed in DSD v MJW [2025] EWFC 119 (B), the family justice system needs "creative solutions." With appropriate safeguards in place, legal fee loans provide precisely that.

Footnotes

I,  Francis Sir N, "Interview with Sir Nicholas Francis" by Nicholas Allen KC and HHJ Edward Hess (Financial Remedies Journal, 18 March 2025)

ii,  DSD v MJW [2025] EWFC 119 (B)

iii,  LI v FT [2024] EWFC 342 (B)