Financial technology moves fast.
The legal structure underneath it can't be improvised.

What Scale's fintech practice handles

Where the technical work lives

Fintech regulatory work spans federal frameworks, state-by-state licensing regimes, and emerging regulatory areas where the rules are still being written.

The substantive practice covers:

• Money transmission and payments. State-by-state money transmitter licensing (nearly every state runs its own framework), the FinCEN registration requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act, payment card industry compliance, and the network rules of card brands and ACH networks. The licensing roadmap for a multi-state payments business is often longer than the product roadmap.
• Lending. Consumer lending licensing under state usury, finance company, and consumer credit acts. Commercial lending exemptions, marketplace lending structures, true-lender analysis, and the bank partnership models that enable fintech lending at scale. The compliance overlay is unforgiving, CFPB, OCC, FDIC, and state attorneys general all have enforcement authority.
• Securities-adjacent. Securities token analysis (Howey test application), Reg D and Reg A frameworks for token offerings, custody rules, and the broker-dealer registration questions that determine which activities require SEC oversight.
• Banking and BSA/AML. Bank Secrecy Act compliance programs, AML monitoring, OFAC sanctions screening, suspicious activity reporting, and the customer identification program (CIP) standards that apply to fintech entities through their bank partners.
• Blockchain and digital assets. Regulatory classification work, custody analysis, the state-by-state framework for digital asset business (BitLicense in New York, money transmitter elsewhere), and the emerging federal frameworks under recent legislation.

When clients call us

Fintech regulatory counsel typically gets engaged at four moments:

1. Before launch. Regulatory classification of the product (is this a money transmitter, lender, securities offering, or banking-adjacent?), licensing roadmap development, and the compliance program design that determines whether the business is launchable in target states. Pre-launch is where the cheapest path through the regulatory framework exists.
2. At scaling. Geographic expansion typically multiplies licensing exposure, each new state often means a new licensing analysis. The state-by-state expansion sequence (which states first, which to defer) is a strategic question with material business consequences.
3. At capital raise. Investor due diligence on regulatory posture, disclosure of regulatory risk in offering documents, and the regulatory representations and warranties that institutional investors expect. Series A diligence often surfaces regulatory gaps that should have been closed earlier.
4. When regulators come. CIDs, examinations, matters requiring attention from prudential regulators, state-level inquiries, and the response posture decisions that determine whether issues escalate. Cooperation strategy, scope negotiation, and remediation commitments all have long-term licensing implications.

What engagements cost

Fintech regulatory work is mostly hourly. The variance in scope between matters, a multi-state licensing project versus a regulatory opinion on a single product feature, makes flat pricing difficult for most work.

Scale LLP's fintech and financial services partners typically price 30-40% below New York or DC Am Law fintech partner rates. The pricing differential is structurally meaningful for fintech businesses, which often face regulatory legal costs that scale faster than revenue in early years.

Some work runs project-based: regulatory classification opinions, single-state license applications, BSA/AML program design, and policy and procedure development. Project pricing is quoted when scope is defined.

Examinations and enforcement work runs hourly with phased budgets. Filing fees, regulatory fees, and surety bond costs (substantial for money transmitter licensing, often $50K-$1M+ per state) pass through with transparency in engagement letters.

How this fits with the rest of the work

Fintech regulatory work intersects with my primary practice in three specific places:

• Cross-border financial services. U.S./Canada cross-border payments, lending, and securities-adjacent businesses face dual regulatory frameworks (OSFI and provincial regulators in Canada; federal and state regulators in the U.S.). Dual-qualified perspective on which jurisdiction's framework drives the structuring is where significant time gets saved.
• Corporate governance for regulated entities. Board composition requirements for licensed entities, fit-and-proper standards, independent director requirements, and the governance documentation that satisfies regulatory examination. The governance layer for fintech is heavier than for unregulated businesses.
• Securities law overlap. Token offerings, Reg D and Reg A structuring, custody analysis, and the broker-dealer questions that span fintech and traditional securities practice. My corporate and securities background reads the regulatory framework from both sides.

The fintech regulatory partner handles the regulatory substance. I handle the integration with corporate, governance, and cross-border.