Product

Solutions

Security

Company

Resources

Request a Demo

Product

Solutions

Security

Company

Resources

Request a Demo

Article

2026-10-19

North Carolina bans third-party litigation funding: what changes for case strategy and discovery

North Carolina’s Prohibit Litigation Investments Act prohibits covered outcome-contingent financing of litigation costs, with timing provisions keyed to June 22, 2026.

In a North Carolina state-court contract dispute, the claimant signed outside financing for expert fees in early 2026, then amended the agreement in August to add a damages expert. The defendant, whose liability insurer pays its defense, serves an interrogatory asking whether anyone besides counsel holds an outcome-contingent financial interest. Before either lawyer answers the statutory question, they need the complaint’s filing date, the original agreement and that August amendment.

North Carolina’s Session Law 2026-14, House Bill 315, effective June 22, 2026, prohibits outcome-contingent financing of civil-proceeding costs, subject to nine exclusions. Its timing provisions reach proceedings commenced and contracts entered into, renewed or amended from that date. At Turbo Law, we see the immediate work in checking financing terms against the case chronology before preparing discovery responses or settlement advice.

What did North Carolina’s litigation funding ban actually prohibit?

The Prohibit Litigation Investments Act prohibits providing money for litigation expenses in exchange for an outcome-contingent return, unless an exclusion applies. It creates Article 52, G.S. 66-511 through 66-515, following the Governor’s signing on June 22, 2026.

G.S. 66-513 states:

“It is unlawful for a person to engage in litigation investment in this State or to furnish litigation investment to a party or counsel of record in a civil proceeding in this State.”

Read the repayment provision closely.

Under G.S. 66-512(3), the money can be a payment, advance, loan or investment for fees, costs and expenses related to a pending or potential proceeding; repayment or other consideration need only be “contingent in any respect on the outcome”. Litigation funding for arbitration, mediation and administrative proceedings can therefore fall within the definition, as can funding delivered to counsel.

What does the ban leave alone?

The Act excludes nine categories, including qualifying contingency fees and insurer-funded defense. G.S. 66-512(3)(a) through (i) supplies the conditions:

Contingency representation: Legal services on a contingency fee basis consistent with the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.
Counsel’s cost advances: Attorney or law-firm advances of costs and expenses consistent with those rules.
Defense and indemnity: An insurer’s or another entity’s contractual obligation to defend or indemnify a party.
Nonprofit litigation: Money to or by a nonprofit for proceedings it commences for itself or its members, with repayment limited to principal plus reasonable interest.
Nonprofit legal services: Money to or by a nonprofit legal-services organization for pro bono, cost-free representation, subject to the same repayment cap.
Non-contingent direct loans: Loans to a party, firm or attorney whose repayment does not depend on any civil proceeding’s outcome.
Household support: Personal and household assistance during litigation, provided it is not used for the proceeding’s fees, costs or expenses.
Support without contingent rights: Litigation-cost assistance whose source receives no outcome-contingent repayment or consideration.
Immediate-family support: Assistance from an immediate family member, including support carrying a contingent return.

The household restriction deserves attention. Money described as living-expense assistance does not satisfy that exclusion if used for the case’s expenses, and the Act draws no general distinction between commercial and consumer funding.

What did North Carolina’s litigation funding ban actually prohibit?

G.S. 66-513 states:

“It is unlawful for a person to engage in litigation investment in this State or to furnish litigation investment to a party or counsel of record in a civil proceeding in this State.”

Read the repayment provision closely.

What does the ban leave alone?

The Act excludes nine categories, including qualifying contingency fees and insurer-funded defense. G.S. 66-512(3)(a) through (i) supplies the conditions:

Contingency representation: Legal services on a contingency fee basis consistent with the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.
Counsel’s cost advances: Attorney or law-firm advances of costs and expenses consistent with those rules.
Defense and indemnity: An insurer’s or another entity’s contractual obligation to defend or indemnify a party.
Nonprofit litigation: Money to or by a nonprofit for proceedings it commences for itself or its members, with repayment limited to principal plus reasonable interest.
Nonprofit legal services: Money to or by a nonprofit legal-services organization for pro bono, cost-free representation, subject to the same repayment cap.
Non-contingent direct loans: Loans to a party, firm or attorney whose repayment does not depend on any civil proceeding’s outcome.
Household support: Personal and household assistance during litigation, provided it is not used for the proceeding’s fees, costs or expenses.
Support without contingent rights: Litigation-cost assistance whose source receives no outcome-contingent repayment or consideration.
Immediate-family support: Assistance from an immediate family member, including support carrying a contingent return.

Does the North Carolina ban apply to pending cases and existing agreements?

Section 3 applies the Act to proceedings commenced on or after June 22, 2026, and to contracts entered into, renewed or amended on or after that date. An earlier signature does not end the inquiry.

Pull the August amendment.

In our opening example, the original agreement predates enactment, but the amendment falls within the contract timing language even if the complaint was already pending; counsel must examine the amended terms and applicable exclusions before reaching a conclusion.

Parker Poe’s commentary describes the law as “new and untested, with no judicial or Attorney General interpretation”. As of October 19, 2026, federal-court application and the treatment of some consumer products remain open questions. An intake note saying the financing is old leaves the renewal and amendment history unanswered.

How does the ban change case strategy for claimants and defendants?

Financing terms now belong in intake analysis and cost planning, because a covered arrangement can expose its participants to consequences separate from the underlying claim. For claimants, that means checking how expert invoices will be paid and whether the proposed financing actually fits an exclusion before committing to the engagement.

Defendants need a factual basis. An insurer’s payment of defense bills falls within an express exclusion; the claimant’s outside funding requires its own analysis.

G.S. 66-514 makes a violating contract void. The Attorney General may seek an injunction, and the court may impose up to $50,000 per violation. An injured person may elect at judgment between common-law damages and “treble the amount of the full potential litigation investment contemplated by the investor”, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Funding alone does not establish injury.

The statute also addresses personal jurisdiction in enforcement and private-remedy actions through a special long-arm provision under G.S. 1-75.4(2). G.S. 66-515 directs liberal construction.

Before mediation, both teams should examine settlement authority and any contractual approval rights. Keep those provisions beside the repayment terms when preparing the client’s settlement analysis.

What changes in discovery when funding may be unlawful?

The Act creates no discovery procedure, automatic disclosure requirement or foreign-funder clause. Requests still require analysis under the governing procedural rules.

Phelps Dunbar’s commentary says potentially unlawful funding becomes “a legitimate and lawful subject of targeted interrogatories, document requests and deposition questioning”. That is commentary, not a judicial ruling compelling production.

Start with identifiable facts. Interrogatories could address the funding parties and agreement dates, while a request for production directed to the August amendment would let counsel address the changed terms without treating every financing communication as equally discoverable.

Responding counsel should evaluate relevance and the work-product doctrine, and consider whether a protective order is appropriate. Our earlier article, Litigation funding disclosure laws: what changes in discovery, covers the broader discovery framework.

An amendment also warrants checking earlier answers against the applicable duty to supplement. That duty comes from governing rules and orders, not a new supplementation provision in this Act.

How are other courts handling litigation funding discovery?

Other courts are adopting disclosure or limited-discovery requirements. Check the forum separately.

As described in Reed Smith’s discussion of Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 26(b)(3), the September 30, 2026 order permits discovery of an agreement’s existence, parties, definitional basis and control rights. Agreement contents and funder work product receive protection, although control provisions may be ordered produced for cause; funding agreements are inadmissible at trial.

The Western District of Louisiana’s Standing Order 1.75, dated September 8, 2026, requires disclosure of funder identity, contingent interests and approval or influence rights, including settlement rights. Its 14-day deadline runs from the specified first appearance or entry into funding, whichever is earlier, with supplementation within 14 days of a material change. The agreement itself requires a court order.

The October 2026 Advisory Committee on Civil Rules agenda book discusses North Carolina’s law and possible approaches under Rule 26(a)(1), Rule 16 or 16.1, or Rule 7.1. Its preliminary discussion distinguishes disclosure of funding’s existence from details that could implicate work product. The October 21 meeting has not occurred as of this post; the agenda book establishes no new federal requirement.

How do we keep financing facts and the case picture in one place?

We keep financing documents the team adds within the same connected picture as the merits, with facts linked to their source pages. The workflow adapts to the case type while review, research, drafting and settlement use that shared record.

Start with the actual documents. Review reads the whole matter file, including pleadings, productions, correspondence, transcripts, expert reports and prior work product, alongside the engagement letter and funding amendments the team supplies. It connects people and events to documents and issues, surfaces discrepancies, and places agreement dates beside the filing date so counsel can examine the June 22 timing language. New records update that picture. Financing correspondence receives first-pass privilege and work-product flags for a lawyer to decide.

With Draft, discovery responses are cross-referenced against the matter file and prior answers, supporting counsel’s check for contradictions before supplementing. Strategy and Settlement refines case evaluation as discovery arrives and organizes mediation documents by argument. The Assistant returns line-cited work for review, identifies unsupported answers, and keeps exportable logs of what was asked, read and produced. It does not serve, file or send.

Our security practices include zero training on client data, logical client isolation, approved support access and logging of access, queries and exports; SOC 2 Type II documentation is available through our Trust Center.

The firm’s DMS remains the system of record. We do not provide legal advice or decide lawfulness, discoverability or privilege; counsel must apply the statute and current case law to the source documents.

FAQ

Are contingency fees still legal in North Carolina?

The Act expressly excludes contingency representation consistent with the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. Review outside financing separately, even when the lawyer’s fee arrangement qualifies.

Does the ban cover arbitration?

Arbitration is expressly included. The definition also covers mediation and administrative proceedings, so moving a dispute outside court does not itself remove the financing from the statutory analysis.

What happens to a violating agreement?

A contract violating the Act is void. Enforcement can also involve an injunction, civil penalties or an injured person’s damages claim, subject to the statute’s requirements.

Does the ban apply in federal court?

That remains unsettled as of October 19, 2026. The Act does not expressly resolve federal-court application; preserve the agreement and amendment history, then check the governing authority before advising on a proposed renewal.

Sources

FAQ

Are contingency fees still legal in North Carolina?

Does the ban cover arbitration?

What happens to a violating agreement?

A contract violating the Act is void. Enforcement can also involve an injunction, civil penalties or an injured person’s damages claim, subject to the statute’s requirements.

Does the ban apply in federal court?