How we source and review legal information.

When this site states what a statute says, the statute is read directly. Specifically:

• California statutes come from the Legislative Counsel's official text at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, not from a code mirror, a law-firm summary, or another funding company's page.
• Court rules and orders come from the issuing court's own published document. Where a court's consolidated rules PDF conflicts with a later general order, the general order governs and we say so on the page.
• Cases are cited by name only where the proposition is settled and widely stated, and never used to imply an outcome in a reader's case.
• Every legal page carries its sources in its own structured data, with the URLs, so a machine or a person can check the work.

Secondary sources — law-firm blogs, competitor pages, news write-ups — are used to find topics, never as authority. Three times during this site's build a widely-repeated claim turned out to be wrong at the source, including one that the entire funding vertical is still publishing.

• A claim we could not verify at the source. If the research is contradictory and the primary text does not settle it, the claim is cut rather than hedged into vagueness. Several assertions were dropped from this site on exactly that basis, including a licensing claim about California funding companies that two independent checks of the chaptered text could not find.
• Guarantees. Approval, amount, and timing are never promised. Not in copy, not in a headline, not in a testimonial.
• Rates or dollar figures. Pricing is case by case, and a published number would mislead in one direction or the other. We explain how the price is built instead. This is a deliberate founder decision, not an omission.
• Legal or medical conclusions about your situation. We describe how things generally work; your attorney and your doctors decide what applies to you.
• Deadlines presented as reliable. Limitations periods have exceptions, tolling rules and traps. We name them so you know to ask, never so you can rely on our version.

Every page that states law carries a review date in its structured data, and that date reflects when the content was actually checked rather than when the file was last touched. Pages are re-reviewed when a cited statute changes, when a court changes a rule we rely on, or at least annually.

Review is currently performed in-house by the founder, who is not an attorney. We would rather say that plainly than imply a review process we do not have. Engaging a California attorney to review the legal pages, and naming them on the pages they review, is a commitment for this site — and until that happens, the deferral clause above is doing real work rather than being boilerplate.

The California Consumer Legal Funding Act is recent, which means much of what is written about it online was published before the final text and some of it is wrong. Two things we do differently on that page:

• We say what the Act does not do. It is widely described as capping what funders may charge. It does not, and reporting it that way sets readers up to be surprised by their own contract.
• We omit claims about registration, licensing and bonding entirely, because the chaptered text does not support them and asserting either way would be guessing.

If something here is wrong, tell us: info@helloworldfunding.com. Point at the page and, if you can, the source. Substantive corrections are made to the page and the review date is updated.

We would rather be corrected by a reader than be wrong in front of one who does not write in. If you are an attorney and something on this site is inaccurate, we would especially like to hear from you.