Legal Funding Journal is dedicated to informing and engaging the global legal funding community through daily news, insight, analysis and original content.

Bo Moss is the Co-Founder and President of Bridgehead Legal Capital. A former litigator in Atlanta and Charlotte, Bo earned a reputation for being a tough but fair adversary. His deep understanding of the legal landscape led him to a Charlotte-based litigation funder, where he leveraged his litigation background to successfully underwrite and tailor loans for contingency fee law firms nationwide.

Since co-founding Bridgehead with Scott Richards and Megan Baer in 2021, Bo has spearheaded the company's mission to provide accessible capital to contingency fee lawyers. Under his leadership, Bridgehead has engaged in over 150 transactions, demonstrating his strategic vision and operational excellence. Bo is a graduate of The University of the South (Sewanee) and Samford University Cumberland School of Law.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Bo Moss:

Bridgehead Legal Capital emphasizes "Freedom Through Funding" and aims to be a long-term partner. Can you elaborate on how this mission guides your approach to client relationships and what specific long-term benefits firms can expect beyond just capital?

"Freedom Through Funding" isn't just a catchy phrase for us; it's the core of how we do business. As former litigators ourselves, we see every client relationship as a real partnership, all about helping you achieve sustained growth. So, beyond just giving you capital, here's what else firms gain:

• Smart Advice: We share insights on things like case selection, portfolio management, and growth strategies, drawing directly from our own legal experience. This makes sure our funding acts as a real boost for well-thought-out, lasting expansion.
• More Control: Our predictable capital gives your firm greater financial freedom. That means less pressure to settle cases too soon, the ability to invest in top-notch experts or the latest tech, and the capacity to take on more truly meritorious cases.
• Better Portfolio Management: We work hand-in-hand with you to understand your entire case pipeline, helping you spot opportunities to leverage your existing assets for future growth.
• We're Nimble and Responsive: We anticipate your evolving needs and quickly adapt, offering agile solutions that truly support your journey. We build relationships based on trust and a shared vision for success.

Your services include both Portfolio Loans and Asset Purchase Loans. For a small to mid-sized plaintiff law firm, how do you help them determine which product is the most advantageous for their specific financial needs and case pipeline?

Great question. When it comes to choosing between Portfolio Loans and Asset Purchase Loans, it really comes down to your firm's specific needs and what your case pipeline looks like. We don't do cookie-cutter solutions; instead, we go through a thorough, collaborative process:

• What are Your Goals? We kick things off by figuring out what you're really trying to achieve – whether it's managing daily expenses, investing in marketing, funding a big, complex case, or growing your team.
• Looking at Your Pipeline:
  • Portfolio Loans are usually best for firms with a diverse, ongoing stream of contingency cases. They let you tap into the collective value of your active cases, giving you consistent cash flow for general operations or bringing in new clients.
  • Asset Purchase Loans are a better fit if you have specific, high-value, well-developed cases. This lets you monetize a portion of the expected future recovery from that particular asset, giving you a bigger lump sum for targeted investments like major trial expenses.
• Comfort with Risk: We'll chat about your comfort level with recourse and how different repayment structures fit your risk appetite.
• Future Cash Flow: We'll project your future cash flow to show how each product impacts your financials, making sure the chosen solution genuinely helps your firm's health.

Ultimately, our job is to guide you in making a smart, strategic decision that truly aligns with your unique business model.

Bridgehead Legal Capital highlights its ability to unlock greater funding for plaintiff law firms by recognizing the value of their case portfolios. Could you explain the unique aspects of your underwriting process that allow you to assess and leverage these portfolios more effectively than traditional lenders?

Our ability to unlock more funding really comes down to our unique underwriting process, which is a big departure from traditional lenders who often just don't have our legal finance expertise:

• Litigator-Led Due Diligence: This is huge for us. Since many on our team, including founders, are former litigators, we inherently understand case merits, legal strategy, and the practicalities of litigation. We analyze legal strengths, attorney experience, jurisdiction, and potential settlement ranges, letting us accurately evaluate the true value of a portfolio where others might only see uncertainty.
• Our Own Valuation Models: We've built sophisticated, proprietary models that dig deep into factors specific to contingency fee litigation. This includes case type, complexity, damages assessment, jurisdictional nuances, and historical performance, allowing us to accurately value future earning potential.
• Portfolio Diversification Analysis: We're really good at understanding the collective strength of an entire portfolio of cases. By looking at diversification by type, litigation stage, and estimated value, we see a more stable asset, which in turn allows us to offer more substantial funding.
• Looking Forward: Unlike banks that often just look at past performance, we focus on the future earning potential of your active cases, assessing success probability and expected recovery.
• Relationship-Based Assessment: Our underwriting isn't just numbers; it's also about understanding your firm's operational efficiency, management capabilities, and overall business strategy. This holistic view gives us a more complete picture of your firm's creditworthiness.

This unique blend of legal expertise, sophisticated modeling, and a forward-looking, relationship-based approach is what allows us to leverage your case portfolio so much more effectively than traditional lenders.

The website mentions categories of loans such as "Start-up," "Case Investments," and "Growth Loan." How do you tailor the terms and support for a start-up firm compared to an established firm seeking a growth loan?

We know a brand-new firm has totally different needs than an established one looking to expand. That's why we tailor our loan terms and support accordingly:

For Start-up Firms:

• Terms: These loans are all about providing that essential working capital to get a solid foundation (think office space, tech, initial marketing, overhead). Repayment structures are often more flexible, maybe with interest-only periods or deferred principal payments, so you can focus on building your case pipeline. Our underwriting here really emphasizes your business plan, the founders' individual legal track records, and how viable your practice area is.
• Support: As former litigators, we offer invaluable mentorship on building a practice, from getting clients to managing cases efficiently. We can also connect you with other professionals in our network and provide scalable funding solutions as your firm matures.

For Established Firms (Growth Loan):

• Terms: These loans are primarily based on the proven value and predictable cash flow of your existing case portfolio, meaning much larger funding amounts are possible. With a solid track record, you'll typically qualify for more favorable interest rates and longer repayment periods. The terms are specifically designed to support your growth initiatives, whether that's expanding into new practice areas or acquiring another firm.
• Support: We provide advanced analysis of your portfolio, helping you spot opportunities for greater efficiency and profitability. We offer data-driven market insights and can help brainstorm strategies for expansion. For complex growth plans, we can even structure customized financial solutions.

Our whole philosophy is about making sure you get the right capital at the right time, with the right level of tailored support, so your firm, no matter its stage, can hit its full potential.

 Given the fast approval process and funds typically delivered within two weeks, what are the key factors that contribute to this efficiency, and what advice would you give to firms to ensure a smooth and rapid funding experience?

Our quick approval process and getting funds to you within two weeks really comes down to our specialized focus and streamlined operations:

• Specialized Expertise: We only do law firm financing. Our team can quickly and accurately assess legal assets without needing a ton of outside help. We just get the nuances.
• Streamlined Due Diligence: We've developed a super efficient process that focuses only on the critical information. We know what we need, and we don't ask for extra paperwork. Our internal systems are built for fast data intake and analysis.
• Agile Structure: As a private lender, we're simply less bureaucratic than big banks. That means quicker internal approvals and faster movement from your application to you actually receiving the funds.

To make sure your funding experience is as smooth and fast as possible, here's my best advice:

• Be Prepared and Organized: Have your firm's financial statements (past 2-3 years) and a detailed list of your active contingency cases (type, stage, estimated value, deadlines, and expenses) all ready to go. The more organized you are, the faster we can move!
• Know Your Needs: Clearly tell us exactly how much capital you need and what you plan to do with it. Saying something to us like “Well I am not entirely sure, maybe something in the range of _____” does not give us confidence that the firm has really spent the requisite amount of time properly reflecting upon their current and future funding needs and how our money is going to be used to assist in growing the firm.
• Designate One Point Person: Pick one person at your firm to be our main contact. This really helps streamline communication.
• Be Responsive: Our efficiency relies on your quick responses to any information requests or clarifications. The faster you get us what we need, the faster we can get you funded!

By partnering with Bridgehead Legal Capital, you're not just getting capital; you're gaining a strategic ally genuinely committed to your long-term success.

John J. Hanley is a Member in the Business Department at McDonald Hopkins and a key contributor to the firm’s Litigation Finance Practice Group. He advises clients across the litigation finance ecosystem on the structuring, negotiation, and execution of complex funding arrangements and financial transactions. With more than 20 years of experience at leading law firms, John brings deep transactional expertise in first- and second-lien credit facilities, private placements, and the purchase and sale of loans, claims, and other illiquid assets.

His clients include litigation funders, specialty finance companies, business development corporations, hedge funds, CLO managers, SPVs, and other institutional investors. John’s practice bridges traditional lending and litigation finance, allowing him to deliver sophisticated, market-informed solutions that align legal risk with commercial strategy.

Your team is Chambers-ranked litigation finance deal counsel. How does that recognition reflect the value you bring to clients in structuring funding arrangements?

We appreciate the recognition from Chambers in a field as specialized and fast-moving as litigation finance. For us, that ranking affirms the trust our clients place in us to structure and close their transactions and the respect we’ve earned throughout the litigation finance ecosystem.

At McDonald Hopkins, we get deals done. We prioritize what matters by focusing on value, clarity, and results. Our approach is practical and efficient, guiding clients from NDA to term sheet to definitive documents and, finally, to funding with strategic precision.

You’ve worked extensively in both lending and litigation finance. How does that dual experience shape your approach to structuring deals that align interests across the table?

My lending background grounds me in negotiating and documenting deals designed to achieve client objectives while aligning incentives across counterparties. In litigation finance, those fundamentals still apply, but the environment is more nuanced. Every deal involves its own set of dynamics and considerations.

In lending, you have established credit models, conventional security packages, and repayment terms that follow predictable patterns. In litigation finance, we're operating in a space where deal inputs aren’t standardized. Each transaction is built on a unique case or portfolio, layered with legal, factual, and procedural complexities that defy one-size-fits-all modeling. That nuance demands creativity and precision. There's no single template that works for every matter.

At McDonald Hopkins, we recognize that underwriting is typically the funder’s responsibility. When representing funders, our primary role is to translate that underwriting into a legal structure that aligns with the deal’s risk profile and commercial objectives. From time to time we are also engaged to assist with due diligence on the underlying litigation to help ensure that the legal and procedural posture of the litigation supports the funder’s investment thesis.

When representing funded parties, whether claimants or their counsel, our focus shifts to protecting their upside, independence, and long-term position. That involves more than simply reviewing documents. We must understand how the funder views the case, the risk and return profile, and anticipate how the litigation may unfold. With that knowledge, we are equipped to negotiate terms that are fair, enforceable, and sustainable.

What are some of the key legal or regulatory pitfalls funders and claimants should be looking out for when drafting a funding agreement?

A few stand out:

• Control: Excessive funder control can raise enforceability and ethical concerns. Decision-making authority must remain with the litigant in conjunction with their counsel. Overreach may implicate champerty or maintenance restrictions in jurisdictions where those doctrines are still active and may interfere with counsel’s duty of loyalty. Funders can and should monitor progress, but they shouldn’t steer litigation or settlement decisions. Of course, they can be a valuable sounding board.
• Attorney-Client Privilege: Often underappreciated, this area can present serious risk. If privileged information is shared during diligence or monitoring, the NDA must preserve the common interest doctrine to try to avoid waiver. You can’t take shortcuts here.
• Disclosure Risk: Courts and regulators are asking more questions, particularly in class actions, bankruptcies, and patent disputes. About 25% of U.S. federal district courts have local rules or standing orders requiring disclosure of third-party funding arrangements. Several states have enacted similar laws. These requirements vary by jurisdiction, so agreements should be drafted with the expectation that some level of disclosure may occur. Clarity, compliance, and defensibility are essential.
• Intercreditor Issues: In deals involving multiple funders or creditors, agreements should clearly define repayment priority, enforcement rights in default, and how proceeds are allocated. Settlement decisions must remain with the claimant and their counsel, but funders may seek consultation on resolutions that could materially affect anticipated returns. Well-drafted intercreditor provisions help align expectations and reduce the risk of disputes after funding.
• Proposed Tax Legislation: The “Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act” (S.1821), introduced by Senator Thom Tillis, would impose a 40.8% tax on profits earned by third-party funders. A revised 31.8% version appeared in the Senate’s draft of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” but was removed on June 30, 2025, after the Senate parliamentarian ruled it noncompliant with budget reconciliation rules.

While the tax is no longer part of active legislation, S.1821 remains under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee. If passed, it could apply retroactively to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025, with significant implications for deal pricing, structure, and tax treatment.

We’re advising clients to build flexibility into agreements, revisit tax allocation language, and monitor developments to preserve deal economics.

Are you seeing shifts in who’s seeking funding and how their expectations are evolving?

Absolutely. Litigation funding is no longer niche. Fortune 500 companies and smaller businesses alike are seeking funding, often because litigation costs weigh heavily on their income statements. Unlocking capital tied up in long-running cases enables companies to redirect resources toward growth, such as hiring, R&D, and strategic initiatives, or to retain preferred counsel.

Law firms have evolved as well. Firms that historically operated on a billable-hour model (think Am Law 200) are increasingly open to contingency fee arrangements, often pairing them with third-party funding to manage risk and liquidity. We’re also seeing firms across the spectrum, from personal injury powerhouses and mass tort firms to elite litigation boutiques, monetize contingency receivables to accelerate growth, improve liquidity, or shift risk. What was once a strategy for cash-constrained firms has become a strategic capital tool for practices with high-value, contingent assets.

Consumers of litigation funding are recognizing that underwriting litigation is not their core competency and that money spent on litigation could be better deployed.

Expectations today revolve around speed, transparency, and deal customization. Funders with boilerplate offerings or long diligence cycles are struggling to keep up.

Given all that evolution, how is the role of deal counsel changing in this ecosystem?

The role of deal counsel has become highly strategic. We’re not just papering deals; we’re shaping term sheets, negotiating funding mechanics, and managing multi-party dynamics to get complex transactions across the finish line.

Funders and funded parties (whether law firms, plaintiffs, or otherwise) rely on us to identify friction points early, design around them, and close with minimal disruption. That’s the role of modern deal counsel in litigation finance.

But some fundamentals remain unchanged…

Exactly. Litigation counsel must remain independent, and the fairness of the legal process must be preserved. Our role as deal counsel is to support that framework, not interfere with it.

The strongest litigation finance deals are built on clearly defined roles, aligned incentives, and mutual respect for legal boundaries. When those fundamentals are in place, both the transaction and the underlying litigation stand on solid ground.