AB 2305 would protect qualifying financing for existing cases. Money used to recruit future plaintiffs sits outside that protection.
The money to try a case and the money to find the next plaintiff get different treatment in California's latest litigation-funding bill.
Consumer Attorneys of California sponsored AB 2305. The Legislature sent it to Gov. Gavin Newsom on August 31 after final votes of 39–0 in the Senate and 78–0 in the Assembly. The official status remains “Governor.” The bill has not become law. Its proposed rules would cover contracts entered into from January 1, 2027. Official status and history.
The trial lawyers' position is more specific than a fight over whether outside capital belongs in litigation. The bill preserves a route for financing identified cases. It also draws a boundary around the money used to acquire more of them.
The enrolled text expressly preserves nonrecourse litigation finance, subject to its restrictions on unauthorized legal practice. That means capital whose repayment depends on the successful resolution of identified representations.
To receive the bill's explicit protection from fee-sharing prohibitions, the arrangement must satisfy four conditions. The contract must name an amount or maximum amount going to the firm. The funder's return must be limited to a multiple of its investment or an interest rate. The money must be used solely to pay fees or expenses for specific, identified representations already commenced or for which counsel has been retained. And the contract must prohibit using it to acquire future clients or matters, solicit future clients, buy leads or seek referrals. Enrolled text, proposed section 6134.10.
That final condition separates two stages of a plaintiff firm's business. Financing the work on an existing case and financing the search for its replacement would not receive the same express protection. It is a boundary on this financing provision, not a finding that every client-acquisition expense is unlawful.
For an insurer following a plaintiff firm's growing inventory, that distinction is the story. A capital restriction aimed at recruitment need not remove the money available to keep an already-filed case moving. AB 2305 supplies no estimate of how much either pool would change.
Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.
The Senate Judiciary Committee described the problem in June: investors can act as lenders without taking an ownership stake and still exert pressure on a law firm. The sponsor's statement expressly identified management services organizations and affiliated litigation-service companies among the structures creating concern. Committee analysis, pages 1 and 5–6.
The final bill defines a corporate legal funder by its purpose and involvement, including service and management arrangements, regardless of its label. A business does not automatically escape the definition by putting services on its letterhead.
The targeted control is concrete: influencing settlement decisions, selecting legal strategy, directing discovery, or imposing investor-return measures on litigation decisions. The bill also reaches funding allocations and budgets that may affect case strategy. Prohibited contract provisions would be void and unenforceable. Enrolled text, sections 6134.2–6134.8.
Those provisions explain why ownership alone is an incomplete map. A lender can have an economic interest without holding shares in the law practice. What matters under this proposal is whether the arrangement crosses into the lawyer's or client's substantive decisions. The bill's text does not decide that question for any named firm or investor.
The proposed remedy also identifies whose independence the bill protects. A client could bring an action against the attorney and corporate legal funder for $10,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is greater, plus fees and other relief. Attorneys could face State Bar discipline. The bill specifies that its violations are not crimes. Enrolled text, section 6134.12.
For a corporate litigation department, the text therefore has two sides. Its own counsel's financing can affect who controls the defense. Across the table, qualifying finance can remain available to fund a plaintiff's case. A rule protecting independent judgment does not promise less litigation or a lower settlement demand.
Newsom's decision is the next event. If the bill takes effect, the January 1 contract date is the next boundary. Existing claims do not vanish with a signature in Sacramento. The provision to watch is whether the capital pays to litigate an identified case or to bring the next client through the door.
The Executive Briefing has five questions about your reported litigation practices. Use the summary to choose an operating question to explore.
Take the Executive Briefing →Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.