Bad apples, big consequences: How a few high-volume mills are putting the whole civil justice system at risk

It's time we stop pretending the problem doesn't exist.

A dangerous model is jeopardizing the civil justice system: high-volume personal injury and mass tort practices fueled by hedge fund cash, propped up by aggressive online and billboard advertising, and designed for speed, not substance. These are not your local lawyers. They are brand engines. Case mills. Legal marketing firms masquerading as law practices. These firms are a very small fraction of the plaintiffs' bar, but they pose an outsized threat -- not just to the integrity of the profession, but to access to justice itself.

Corporate lobbyists, insurance companies and tech giants have spent decades pushing "tort reform" -- a sanitized term for rules that strip power from regular people and protect deep-pocketed defendants. These efforts have gained traction in states across the country by painting trial lawyers as greedy, unserious and unethical. And now, a small group of billboard-adjacent firms operating like mass-marketing factories are handing them the narrative they need.

Let's be clear: this is not how most plaintiffs' lawyers operate. The overwhelming majority of the plaintiffs' bar take on cases with real scrutiny, represent real people, and fight for justice, not volume. Most plaintiff lawyers are hard-working men and women who care deeply about their clients. Without them, the courthouse doors would be closed to millions of working-class people who could never afford to pay a lawyer by the hour. These real lawyers front the costs, put in the years, and only get paid if they win -- shouldering all the risk so that their clients can have a fair shot at justice.

We've all seen the signs, even though they are from a small minority of firms: Seven-figure monthly advertising budgets. Social media funnels masquerading as "informational campaigns." "Pre-litigation" departments staffed by dozens of "case managers" unlicensed to practice law while negotiating settlements for injured clients. The pressure is immense -- turn leads into signed clients, and signed clients into settlements, as fast as possible, for as cheaply as possible. Because behind it all is a financial structure built on short-term returns, not long-term service. The faster the flip, the higher the yield.

It is dangerous when anyone borrows money, whether from a rich uncle or a hedge fund. The borrower becomes a serf to the lender's whims. Let's be realistic: if a lawyer owes millions of dollars in debt, that lawyer may settle cases as quickly as possible without regard for the client's well-being. We are aware of past situations involving lawyers who also purchase a lifestyle they cannot afford with borrowed money. Borrowing money may be nothing more than borrowing time.

Rumors abound of some of these firms spending upwards of $1 million per month on targeted digital and multimedia ads. They dominate social media feeds, drown out the many real and qualified lawyers, and game SEO to the point where the consumer's first contact with the civil justice system is a chatbot.

But what happens when cases are evaluated in bulk? When legal advice is outsourced to "case managers?" When client relationships are reduced to CRM fields? The consequences go far beyond any one firm. You end up with the kind of allegations now surfacing in high-profile settlements: fraudulent claims, fake stories and real victims lost in the shuffle. Worse still, these isolated but highly publicized allegations become the brush that paints the entire plaintiffs' bar -- damaging the reputation of thousands of honest, ethical, hardworking lawyers who do things the right way every single day.

The answer is not tort reform. Broad legislative changes seeking to tie the hands of all lawyers won't fix this problem -- they'll just hurt the people who need lawyers the most. That's the great irony: corporate interests and insurance companies love these mass-advertising mills. Why? Because they offer a perfect excuse to undermine the whole system. When even just a few firms become caricatures of the worst lawyer stereotypes, they hand the tort reform lobby its talking points on a silver platter.

So, what is the solution?

It starts with the broader legal community calling out this behavior. We need to draw a hard line when it comes to high-volume mass advertising PI practices. We need stricter rules on legal advertising, especially on social media, where the line between information and manipulation has all but vanished. We need to demand transparency about the qualifications of the lawyers who are profiting from these practices, the lenders funding these firms, and what control those financiers exert. If you're leveraged to the gills with hedge fund money, and every case has to monetize by Q3 to hit your investor targets, then you're not practicing law. It is just a numbers game.

We also need substantial and real-time oversight. There is no doubt that the First Amendment and commercial free speech should be protected, but the same commercial free speech is not unlimited, and deceptive advertising and false advertising must be controlled. If the State Bar is unable or unwilling to provide oversight, then we must do it ourselves.

But here's the good news: this wouldn't be hard to fix. The number of lawyers operating this way is small -- but their impact is massive. If we police it better, everyone benefits. The courts. The clients. The real lawyers who make up the overwhelming majority of this profession and actually do the work.

Consumers deserve better. They deserve real lawyers -- not firms whose primary skill is lead generation. They deserve advocacy that is ethical, transparent, and tailored to their case -- not optimized for volume. This is a profession, not a pipeline. Those interested in simply maximizing margins and generating profits should consider starting a different type of business -- one where clients' futures aren't at stake.

This is not a proposal for some utopian purge of every firm with a marketing budget. But if we want to protect contingency fees, preserve consumer access to justice, and defend the plaintiffs' bar from its loudest critics, we need to call out what's happening. Loudly. Publicly. And with purpose.

Because if we don't, the only people who will be left speaking are the ones who never wanted victims to have lawyers in the first place.