Picture this: A potential client walks into your office with a case that has all the hallmarks of a major win. The liability is clear, the damages are substantial, and the defendant has deep pockets. Your experience tells you this could be a seven-figure settlement—maybe more. But there's a catch. The upfront costs to properly work this case will run somewhere between $150,000 and $400,000.

Do you take it?

For many small to medium-sized plaintiff firms, this scenario triggers an uncomfortable tension between opportunity and risk. The case could transform your practice. It could also drain your operating capital, jeopardize payroll, and compromise your ability to work other cases effectively. This is the million-dollar case dilemma, and how you respond to it often determines whether your firm stays small or scales successfully.

Why Smaller Firms Pass on High-Value Cases (And What They're Missing)

Let's be honest: most trial lawyers at smaller firms say no to these cases. They refer them out to larger plaintiff practices or simply decline to take them on. The math seems straightforward—why risk hundreds of thousands of dollars you don't have?

But here's what that "safe" decision actually costs you:

Lost revenue potential. A case that settles for $3 million on a 40% contingency fee represents $1.2 million in gross revenue. Even after expenses, that's typically $700,000 to $900,000 in profit—often more than many small firms generate in an entire year.

Missed growth opportunities. High-value cases do more than pay bills. They build your reputation, attract better clients, and position your firm as capable of handling complex litigation. Every big case you pass on is a signal to the marketplace about your firm's capacity.

Competitive disadvantage. While you're referring cases out, your competitors—including larger plaintiff firms and boutique practices with better capital access—are building portfolios of high-value litigation. They're scaling while you're staying stagnant.

The irony? Many of these cases aren't actually riskier than smaller matters. A $300,000 case with clear liability and strong damages might actually be less risky than three $100,000 cases with murkier facts. The difference is simply the upfront capital requirement.

The True Cost of Firm-Funded Case Expenses

Most trial lawyers think about case costs in simple terms: "I'll spend $200,000 to work this case." But that's not the complete picture. When you fund cases from firm capital, you're making several hidden sacrifices:

Opportunity cost. Every dollar you spend on case costs is a dollar you can't use for marketing, hiring talent, upgrading technology, or taking on additional cases. If your firm typically generates a 30% return on invested capital, spending $200,000 on case costs means forgoing $60,000 in alternative returns.

Cash flow strain. Large case expenses rarely occur evenly over time. Expert witnesses want payment upfront. Depositions cluster together. Medical record costs spike early in discovery. This lumpy spending pattern creates cash flow crunches that can force you to delay payroll, postpone necessary investments, or take on credit card debt at punishing interest rates.

Risk concentration. When your firm's capital is tied up in two or three major cases, you're essentially betting your entire practice on those outcomes. A single unexpected adverse ruling or a defendant bankruptcy can put your whole operation at risk.

The math on this is sobering. Let's say your firm has $400,000 in working capital and takes on a case requiring $250,000 in expenses over 18 months. You're now operating with only $150,000 to cover everything else—payroll, rent, technology, marketing, and expenses for all your other cases. One unexpected cost spike or a delayed settlement, and you're in trouble.

Case-Specific Financing: Leveling the Playing Field

This is where case financing fundamentally changes the equation. Instead of betting your firm's capital on individual cases, you can access case-specific funding that treats each matter as its own economic unit.

Here's why this matters: When you use case-specific financing for litigation costs, you preserve your working capital for operating the business while still taking on high-value cases. You get the upside potential of major litigation without the downside risk to your firm's financial stability.

The strategic advantage is significant. While other small firms are passing on great cases due to capital constraints, you can compete directly with larger plaintiff practices and well-funded defense firms. You can take on multiple high-value cases simultaneously. You can invest in the expert witnesses, cutting-edge demonstrative exhibits, and comprehensive discovery that actually win cases.

A Framework for Evaluating High-Cost Cases

Not every expensive case is worth taking, even with financing available. Here's a practical framework for making these decisions:

1. Assess the Liability Strength

Start with the most important question: Can you prove liability? Review the evidence you already have. A case with clear liability and $5 million in damages is vastly superior to one with $20 million in damages but contested liability. If you're not confident you can establish fault, the case costs don't matter—you shouldn't take it regardless of financing.

2. Calculate Your Expected Return

Use a probability-weighted approach. If you estimate a 70% chance of success with an expected recovery of $3 million, your expected value is $2.1 million. Multiply that by your contingency fee percentage (say, 40%), giving you an expected fee of $840,000. Now subtract anticipated case costs of $300,000, leaving an expected net profit of $540,000.

Compare this to the time investment required. If the case will consume 800 hours of attorney time over two years, you're looking at approximately $675 per hour—well above most firms' effective rates.

3. Evaluate the Defendants' Ability to Pay

A winning verdict is worthless if the defendant can't pay. Research the defendants' financial stability, insurance coverage, and asset base. Corporate defendants with comprehensive insurance policies are generally more reliable than individual defendants or thinly capitalized small businesses.

4. Consider the Timeline

Litigation funding works best when you can reasonably estimate the case timeline. A case likely to settle within 18-24 months has more predictable costs and financing terms than one that might drag on for five years. Factor in the jurisdiction's pace—some courts move quickly while others are severely backlogged.

5. Analyze Your Portfolio Diversification

Even with financing, you don't want all your eggs in one basket. If this case would represent more than 50% of your firm's active contingency fee portfolio, think carefully about concentration risk. The ideal scenario is having multiple strong cases at different stages of litigation.

The Real-World Math: A Case Study

Let's walk through a concrete example. Imagine you're evaluating a product liability case with the following parameters:

• Estimated settlement value: $4 million
• Contingency fee: 40% ($1.6 million)
• Anticipated case costs: $275,000
• Timeline: 20 months to settlement
• Probability of success: 75%

Scenario A: Firm-Funded Expenses

You fund the $275,000 from firm capital. Assuming your firm's capital typically generates a 25% annual return in other uses, you're sacrificing approximately $114,583 in opportunity cost over 20 months. Your effective case investment is $389,583. At a 75% probability of success, your expected net return is ($1,600,000 - $389,583) × 0.75 = $907,813.

But remember—you've also tied up $275,000 that could have funded other cases or business growth. If that capital constraint forces you to pass on another strong case, your opportunity cost multiplies.

Scenario B: Case-Specific Financing

You use litigation financing at, say, 12% annual interest for the $275,000 in expenses. Over 20 months, you'd pay approximately $55,000 in interest costs (which may be recoverable from the settlement). Your total case costs are now $330,000, but your working capital remains intact.

Your expected net return is ($1,600,000 - $330,000) × 0.75 = $952,500. More importantly, you still have $275,000 available to invest in marketing, hire additional staff, or take on other cases. If that capital generates even a modest return elsewhere, you're significantly ahead of the firm-funded scenario.

The difference becomes even more dramatic when you consider multiple cases. With case-specific financing, you could potentially take on three similar cases simultaneously—something that would be impossible if you were funding expenses from firm capital.

How Modern Case Financing Works

Case financing has evolved significantly beyond the predatory lending that gave litigation funding a bad reputation years ago. Today's case-specific credit solutions are designed specifically for the realities of plaintiff law firms.

At Level Esq, we've built Level Case Financing (LCF) to address exactly these challenges. Here's how it works:

Fast decisions. Through automated underwriting, we can evaluate cases and deliver decisions in hours, not months. When you need to advance a case quickly, delays in financing approval can mean missed deadlines or lost opportunities.

Case-level tracking. Each case gets its own credit line with separate interest tracking. This means you can clearly identify which costs belong to which case—critical for recovering expenses from settlements or judgments where permissible.

Flexible repayment. Repayment schedules align with your case timeline, not arbitrary monthly payments. When the case settles or wins at trial, you repay from the proceeds. If the case is lost, the recourse terms are designed specifically for litigation scenarios.

Competitive rates. Because the underwriting is built specifically for plaintiff litigation, rates are competitive with business financing while accounting for case-specific factors like liability strength, defendant creditworthiness, and expected timelines.

The goal isn't just to provide capital—it's to help trial lawyers make smarter strategic decisions about which cases to take and how to build a sustainable, scalable practice.

Taking Action: Evaluating Your Case Funding Strategy

If you're regularly passing on high-value cases due to cost concerns, it's time to reevaluate your approach. Here are three steps to get started:

First, calculate your true cost of capital. What return does your firm typically generate on its working capital? What opportunities are you missing because capital is tied up in case costs? Most firms are surprised to discover their effective cost of firm-funded expenses is significantly higher than they thought.

Second, identify the cases you've referred out. Over the past two years, what high-value cases did you decline or refer elsewhere due to cost concerns? What would your revenue have been if you'd taken just half of those cases? This exercise often reveals that capital constraints are costing you hundreds of thousands—or millions—in lost revenue.

Third, explore case-specific financing options. Talk to providers who understand plaintiff litigation. Ask about underwriting speed, rates, case-level tracking, and repayment terms. Compare the cost of financing to your opportunity cost of firm-funded expenses.

At Level Esq, we help trial lawyers work through exactly this analysis. We can evaluate your current case funding approach, calculate what it's actually costing you, and show you what becomes possible when capital is no longer a constraint on taking great cases.

The Bottom Line

The million-dollar case dilemma isn't really about whether you can afford to take expensive cases. It's about whether you can afford not to. Every high-value case you pass on is potential revenue walking out the door—revenue that often goes to larger firms who've figured out how to access capital efficiently.

Case-specific financing levels the playing field. It allows small and medium-sized plaintiff firms to compete for the same cases as large plaintiff practices, to build diversified portfolios of high-value litigation, and to preserve working capital for the strategic investments that actually grow a business.

The question isn't whether your firm can handle a $300,000 case. The question is: what becomes possible when case costs stop being the limiting factor in your growth?

If you're ready to explore smarter alternatives to firm-funded case expenses, let's talk. Level Esq specializes in helping trial lawyers evaluate their funding options and access the capital they need to take on the cases they deserve.

‍