Purpose
Our educational pages are written to help applicants understand pre-settlement funding review, costs, attorney verification, documents, and common questions before applying.
CasePayNow resource
Editorial Policy
How CasePayNow creates and maintains educational funding content
Editorial review
Reviewed July 29, 2026
This policy is maintained by the CasePayNow Editorial Team to keep funding content clear, conservative, and aligned with current intake, attorney-verification, privacy, and referral-disclosure language.
No fake credentials
We do not claim attorney authorship, attorney review, or professional qualifications unless they are real and stated plainly.
Review cadence
Pages may be updated when funding processes, provider requirements, internal review standards, or user questions change.
Important limits
Funding claims depend on the final review
Approval is not guaranteed. Funding amounts, timing, fees, state availability, attorney participation, repayment language, and whether funding is non-recourse depend on the case facts, provider review, signed agreement terms, and final approval. Traditional credit and employment are generally not the main review factors, but provider requirements can vary.
Helpful context
What to know about Editorial Policy
The editorial process is intended to keep funding information plain-language, applicant-focused, and consistent with business disclosures. Pages should avoid unsupported claims and should be updated when process, policy, or state-availability information changes.
Practical note
How this applies to Editorial Policy
Educational pages should be written for plaintiffs and applicants first. The content should explain what happens, what can delay a review, what information may be requested, what risks to compare, and when an attorney or provider should answer a question directly.
Policy detail
Additional review standard
CasePayNow should avoid fake testimonials, unsupported years-of-experience claims, invented reviewers, and absolute promises. When trust elements are added, they should be based on verifiable process features such as secure intake, attorney verification, clear disclosures, and no-obligation review.