Law firm funding & working capital for your next big case.

No. Litigation finance typically advances money against a plaintiff’s expected settlement. Law firm funding finances the firm’s own business — case costs, payroll, expansion, and marketing — repaid from the firm’s revenue, not from any single case outcome.

Firms with steady case flow and consistent revenue can qualify. Underwriting looks at the business’s overall revenue and bank activity rather than any single pending case. Discuss your fee mix with the team when you apply.

Common uses include expert witness and trial costs, associate and staff payroll, office expansion, case management technology, and marketing that attracts higher-value matters.

With a complete application, firms can get a decision in as little as 4 hours and funding as fast as same day. Apply directly to Logic Advance — no obligation.

Prepare a signed application and four recent, complete business bank statements. Additional records, identification, and ownership information may be requested.

The published programs require operating history and monthly revenue. A solo practice that meets the revenue guidelines can apply; discuss your situation with the team.

A merchant cash advance is structured around future receivables rather than a credit line, with its own cost and collection structure. Compare total cost, payment timing, and flexibility against your fee and settlement cycle before deciding.

An MCA provides working capital based on future receivables — for firms, that means case settlements and fee income. Repayment is structured around cash flow, often daily or weekly. Firms commonly use it to bridge the gap between taking a case and getting paid, or to fund marketing and hiring during growth.

Daily or weekly remittance for advances; monthly for equipment and term structures. Contingency practices with lumpy settlement timing often prefer structures that flex with actual collections rather than fixed calendar payments.

Traditional channels often don't understand contingency economics — irregular income looks risky on their scorecard. Alternative funders evaluate the firm's actual receivables pipeline and case inventory. Speed is the other difference: hours versus weeks.

Factoring advances cash against specific invoices — for firms, typically hourly billings awaiting payment. It can smooth the 60-to-90-day collection cycle many firms face. Compare factoring fees and recourse terms against an advance on overall receivables.

Turning away cases for lack of capacity, attorneys at full utilization, a healthy pipeline of signed matters, and cash reserves that can't cover the next hire. If demand exceeds capacity, funding the expansion — staff, space, marketing — is how you capture it.

Business-purpose funding is available to qualifying firms across the U.S. State-specific rules can affect certain structures, so the team confirms availability for your location during the review. Start the application and you'll get a straight answer.

The team reviews your signed application and four recent, complete bank statements, and may request identification, ownership information, and engagement letters or fee agreements. With a complete application, firms can get a decision in as little as 4 hours, and funding can follow as fast as same day once approved. You will get a straight answer — not a form letter and not weeks of silence.

Start with the case budget, not a round number. The example on this page totals $100,000 — $60,000 in expert witness fees, $15,000 in trial exhibits and court costs, and a $25,000 operating reserve. If the firm can contribute $30,000 without using essential operating cash, the planning gap is $70,000 before financing fees or other costs. Itemized costs make the request easier to approve.

Logic Advance’s published guidelines start at $25,000 in monthly business revenue. Merchant cash advance and line-of-credit guidelines start at six months in business, while equipment and term-funding guidelines start at one year. Credit requirements and additional conditions differ by product, and meeting a minimum does not guarantee approval — the review weighs the firm’s overall revenue, case flow, and operating history.

Compare the full obligation, not just the payment. Confirm the net amount the firm will receive, every fee, the total repayment obligation, the remittance frequency, and the expected duration. For a contingency practice, ask how remittance handles months when no settlement lands, and review guarantees and early-payment terms in writing before signing anything.

Yes. Hiring ahead of demand is a common funding purpose: a new associate’s salary, support staff, and case management tools all cost money before the added capacity produces fees. Funding bridges that gap so the firm can accept the cases in its pipeline instead of turning work away. Bring your current caseload and hiring plan so underwriting can see the growth behind the request.

Yes. Firms often return when a larger matter needs expert funding, when a second office opens, or when hiring outpaces settlement timing again. A prior application on file makes the next review simpler, because the team already understands your fee structure and revenue patterns. Apply when the need is clear, not when cash is already tight.

Present it itemized, the way this page's example is built: $60,000 in expert witness fees, $15,000 in trial exhibits and court costs, and a $25,000 operating reserve, totaling $100,000. Pair the budget with your current caseload so underwriting can see the matter the money advances. A priced case plan gets a clearer review than a round request, because the reviewer can follow exactly what each dollar does and when the case is expected to repay it.

Apply as soon as the case is scoped, not when the costs land. With a complete application, firms can get a decision in as little as 4 hours and funding as fast as same day, but that speed depends on the file being complete — signed application, four recent complete bank statements, and your case-cost budget together. Funding arranged early lets you retain experts on your schedule instead of negotiating deposits against a deadline.

Yes. This page states it directly: engagement letters and fee agreements help underwriting see the revenue behind the request, including contingency practices whose income arrives in settlements, not paychecks. Bank statements show what has already arrived; engagement letters show the work already signed and coming. Sending both gives the review the full picture of a firm whose best months are real but irregular.

Build one combined case-cost budget that lists each matter's needs separately — experts on one case, exhibits and court costs on another — rather than blending them into a single unexplained figure. The review weighs the firm's revenue, cash flow, and existing obligations alongside the request, and an itemized multi-case plan shows exactly what the funding advances and which settlements stand behind it.

This page's case-budget example keeps a $25,000 operating reserve inside a $100,000 plan, and the firm in the example contributes $30,000 without using essential operating cash. The reserve is what keeps payroll, rent, and the rest of the practice running while a funded case is still months from settling. Size it to your firm's real monthly obligations, and fund the case costs — not the reserve — with the request.

Your funding stays on the schedule in your agreement, so plan the request against a realistic case timeline rather than the fastest one. If a matter's timing changes materially, contact the team early with the updated picture — current caseload, expected settlement timing, and the firm's revenue — instead of waiting until cash is tight. Firms that apply when the need is clear, not when cash is already short, give every review the best starting point.

Match each part of the request to a milestone: expert retainers when experts are engaged, deposition and reporter costs as testimony is taken, and exhibits and filing fees as trial approaches. This page's $100,000 case-cost budget is built that way, with $60,000 for experts, $15,000 for exhibits and court costs, and $25,000 held as an operating reserve. A staged plan shows underwriting when money is needed, not just how much.

Engagement letters and fee agreements, organized with your signed application and four recent, complete bank statements. They show the matters in motion and how the firm gets paid, including contingency practices whose income arrives in settlements rather than regular cycles. Keep the case-cost budget beside them, priced by milestone, so the revenue story and the spending plan answer each other's questions in one file.

Yes. Marketing that attracts higher-value matters is a listed use on this page, alongside case costs, associate and staff payroll, office expansion, and case management technology. Size it like any other part of the plan: name the campaign, its cost, and the matters it is meant to produce, and keep it inside the same complete budget as the case work it supports.

Combine the two case budgets before you apply, not after the first one funds. Add each matter's expert, exhibit, and court costs by milestone, then hold one operating reserve across both, the way this page holds $25,000 inside its $100,000 example. Tell the team both trial dates up front. A firm that presents the full quarter gives underwriting one honest picture instead of a second urgent request midstream.

Contact the team early with the updated picture: current caseload, the revised settlement timing, and the firm's revenue, rather than waiting until cash is tight. Your funding stays on the schedule in your agreement, so early notice is what creates options. This page makes the same point about timing generally: firms that apply when the need is clear, not when cash is already short, give every review its best starting point.

A later request is a new review based on the firm at that time: current revenue, caseload, cash flow, and how the existing funding performed. Payments made on schedule, plus updated statements and a fresh case-cost budget, show a firm that borrows against a plan and retires it as agreed. That record does not guarantee approval, but it gives the next review documented performance instead of projections.

Open a simple ledger for each matter and record every case cost against it as it lands: expert fees, court reporters, filing fees, exhibits, and travel. This page builds its example one matter at a time, $60,000 in expert witness fees and $15,000 in trial exhibits and court costs inside a $100,000 budget. The habit takes minutes per entry and turns your next request into a record, not a reconstruction.

Tell the team when it happens, with the expert's updated terms in writing. Expert witnesses are the largest line in this page's example budget, so a mid-case increase changes the plan's math. A firm that flags the change early, shows the revised fee against the matter's ledger, and explains the remaining milestones gives the review a clear question to answer instead of a surprise at the end.

Depositions and court reporters are part of the case costs this page funds, and they rarely arrive with much warning. Speed is built for exactly this: a complete application can receive a decision in as little as 4 hours, with funding as fast as same day. Keep your application documents current, and a short-notice deposition becomes a scheduling task instead of a cash emergency.

Send the matter's own ledger with its engagement letter and fee agreement. Together they show what the case has cost, what the firm expects the matter to return, and how the requested amount maps to real work. That pairing is what this page means by helping underwriting see the revenue behind the request, especially for contingency practices paid in settlements rather than paychecks.

Good news still deserves a plan. Tell the team the settlement timing changed, check your agreement for how an early payoff or an extra payment is treated, and get the answer in writing before you redirect the money. An early settlement can retire the funding ahead of schedule and strengthen the firm's record for the next case, which is a story your ledger will tell for you.

Stage it, the way this page stages its example: size the full matter first, $100,000 in its budget, then match the money to the milestones across the case's real life, expert retainers first and trial costs as the date approaches. Long cases also argue for keeping the $25,000 operating reserve intact, because a settlement that slips a season should strain the calendar, not the payroll.

Because they are repaid from different events. Case costs are recovered when a matter settles or is won, while operating costs are carried by the firm's regular fee income every month. This page's example separates them on purpose: $75,000 of expert and trial costs for the matter, and a $25,000 reserve for the firm. Pooled together, a slow case can silently consume the money payroll depends on.

Record every funded dollar against one of the two buckets at the moment it is spent, expert retainers, court reporters, and filing fees to the matter, rent, payroll, and insurance to the firm. A one-line entry per payment is enough. That record, kept beside the engagement letters and fee agreements this page asks you to organize, lets underwriting, your partners, and you read the same story without reconstruction.

Treat it as a new decision, not a transfer. Price what the matter still needs, check what the firm bucket can truly spare after its next two months of fixed costs, and if the honest answer is not enough, that is the moment for a staged request rather than a quiet raid. Cases that grow mid-course are normal; funding them by weakening the firm that carries them is how good matters create bad months.

Yes, if the plan names the two buckets and their separate tests, the way this page's $100,000 example names case costs and the operating reserve as different lines. The case part is judged against the matter's expected recovery and timeline; the hire is judged against the firm's recurring fee income. One application can hold both, but the review, and your own tracking, should never blur which dollar answers to which test.

Reconcile the matter first: list the expert fees, exhibits, and court costs charged to that case, set them against the recovery, and only then move the firm's fee share into operating income. Close the matter's ledger and file it with its engagement letter. That closed file becomes your best pricing evidence for the next similar case, because it shows what the work actually cost, start to finish.

Review three things: each open matter's case bucket against its budget, the firm bucket against the next two months of fixed costs, and any matter whose timeline has slipped since the last review. Fifteen minutes on those numbers keeps surprises shared and early. It also keeps the reserve, $25,000 in this page's example, visibly intact, which is the partners' shared proof that growth is not being funded out of next month's payroll.

Because experts, court reporters, and calendars all book out and then slow down in late December. An expert retained in November is briefed and scheduled before the slowdown; the same expert approached in January is behind every other firm's new-year rush. This page's plan funds that head start with $60,000 of expert witness fees inside a $100,000 total.

Matter by matter: the expert's name, the work they are retained to do, the date it must start, and the bucket that pays for it. Keep the list beside the engagement letters and fee agreements this page asks you to organize by matter, so the funding request and the case calendar tell the same story.

The dates that cannot move: filing deadlines, deposition windows, expert report due dates, and the court's own holiday closures. Build the funding around them, so the $15,000 of trial exhibits and court costs in this page's example and the expert fees behind them are in place before the calendar, not the budget, becomes the problem.

It pulls the whole matter forward. A briefed expert can flag the missing records, the extra testing, or the second opinion the case needs while there is still time to get them, instead of surfacing them against a deadline. That is schedule protection bought with the case bucket, $60,000 of expert fees in this page's plan, not with the firm's reserve.

Each open matter's case bucket against its budget and its calendar, the firm bucket against the next two months of fixed costs, and any expert whose start date slipped during the holiday weeks. Fifteen minutes on those numbers keeps the $25,000 reserve in this page's example visibly intact while the courthouse is quiet.

The expert's engagement letter, the briefing date, the delivered report date against the date the court set, and the bucket record showing which funds paid for each step. Together they prove the funding did its job, and they make the next request, reviewed against $25,000 in monthly revenue and four recent, complete bank statements, a short conversation.

By the date each matter next moves — the soonest hearing, deposition, or filing first. Every matter gets its next cost written beside that date, so the ranking is a calendar, not an opinion. This page's buckets frame the money: $60,000 of expert fees, $15,000 of exhibits and court costs, and a $25,000 reserve inside a $100,000 plan.

The next dated step in the matter and the cost attached to it. An expert who must be retained before a January deposition outranks a cost that cannot arise until spring, however large the spring cost is. Ranking by dates keeps the $70,000 gap on this page's plan flowing to the work that cannot wait.

Because costs that arrive unranked compete with each other in the worst week possible. A December ranking is made calmly, against the whole docket, with the operating reserve — $25,000 on this page's budget — deliberately left out of the sequence. January's costs then meet a plan instead of a scramble, and the firm chooses instead of reacting.

Its next date: the hearing, deposition, or filing the cost serves. A cost with a date can be funded in time; a cost without one is a surprise waiting for a week when the firm is busiest. Keeping engagement letters and fee agreements organized beside the ranking is what lets a reviewer see the revenue behind the request as well.

It turns the request into a sequence with amounts and dates, sized against this page's guidelines — $25,000 in monthly business revenue to start, a signed application, and four recent, complete bank statements. A reviewer can see which matter each part of the $70,000 gap serves and when, and a decision in as little as 4 hours becomes a decision about a plan, not a pile.

Payroll, rent, and the firm's ordinary month — the costs no single case should ever carry. On this page's budget the reserve is $25,000 of the $100,000 plan, kept separate from case money from day one. Ranking decides the order case money moves in; the reserve is what keeps the firm steady while it moves.