WHY LITIGATION FUNDERS WIN OR LOSE OPPORTUNITIES BEFORE CASE REVIEW BEGINS
The following piece was contributed by Eric Schurke, CEO, North America at Moneypenny.
In litigation finance, firms often believe they win or lose opportunities based on the quality of their analysis, the strength of their capital position, or the sophistication of their investment strategy. But, in reality, that decision is often made much earlier.
It happens during the very first interaction; the first inquiry, the first call, the first exchange of information between a claimant, law firm, or referrer and the funding team. Long before a case is reviewed in detail or due diligence begins, impressions are already forming around responsiveness, professionalism, clarity and trust.
And yet, across much of the industry, first contact is still treated primarily as an administrative process rather than a strategic one.
First contact shapes confidence
Litigation finance is fundamentally relationship driven. While analytics, modelling and case assessment are all critical, trust remains central to every funding decision and every long-term partnership.
Over the years, I’ve seen that first contact is rarely neutral. A prompt, thoughtful response signals professionalism, organization, and confidence, while slow follow-up or fragmented communication can quietly introduce doubt even when the underlying opportunity is strong.
Potential claimants and law firms may not always articulate those impressions directly, but they absolutely act on them.
At Moneypenny, we often see this when new legal and professional services clients come to us after experiencing missed calls, delayed responses, or inconsistent handling of inbound inquiries that have already cost them opportunities. In many cases, the issue is not capability. The organization may be highly experienced and commercially strong, but the experience at first contact simply failed to reflect that at the moment it mattered most.
That is why first contact should not be viewed as operational admin alone. It is the beginning of the relationship, and increasingly, a competitive differentiator.
The hidden cost of inconsistent intake
One of the biggest operational challenges within litigation finance is inconsistency in how inbound opportunities are handled.
Inquiries arrive through multiple channels; law firm referrals, direct claimant inquiries, email introductions, website forms, conferences, and professional networks. Information is often captured differently depending on who receives it, while ownership and follow-up responsibilities can quickly become unclear.
From the outside, that creates a fragmented experience. Internally, it slows evaluation, introduces inefficiencies, and increases the likelihood of missed opportunities or incomplete information at the earliest stages of review.
The most effective organizations bring structure and clarity to this process. They define what information needs to be captured at first contact, how it should be recorded, and how opportunities move efficiently through the pipeline.
But importantly, they do this without losing the human element.
Structure creates consistency. People create trust. And in litigation finance, both matter.
Responsiveness matters but so does judgment
There is understandably a strong focus across the sector on speed. Opportunities move quickly, competition for high-quality matters is increasing, and firms want to accelerate triage and evaluation wherever possible.
But speed on its own is not enough. A rushed or overly transactional interaction can be just as damaging as a slow one, particularly when claimants or law firms are dealing with complex, high-stakes, or emotionally charged situations.
Equally, over-automation creates its own risks. Generic responses, unclear escalation pathways, or communication that feels impersonal can weaken trust very early in the relationship.
What matters is balance.
In litigation finance, the value of first contact extends far beyond simply answering an inquiry. Early interactions often determine how efficiently opportunities are qualified, routed, and progressed, while also protecting valuable time for investment and legal teams by filtering out incomplete or non-viable matters early in the process.
At Moneypenny, we regularly see how structured intake and well-managed communication can improve responsiveness, reduce operational friction, and create stronger early-stage relationships with claimants, referrers, and law firms. Small improvements at this stage can have a significant downstream impact on both pipeline quality and overall efficiency.
In practice, that may mean using technology to improve responsiveness, consistency, and information capture, while ensuring experienced people remain central to judgment, relationship-building, and decision-making.
When that balance is right, the experience feels seamless rather than procedural.
Leadership shows up in the operational details
It is easy to think of leadership primarily in terms of investment strategy, growth targets, or market positioning. But in practice, leadership often reveals itself much earlier and in far smaller moments.
It shows up in what organizations prioritize, what they intentionally design, and what they refuse to dismiss as “just operational.” First contact is one of those moments.
When firms invest in structured intake, responsive communication, and the people responsible for handling those early interactions, the impact is tangible, not only in efficiency, but in stronger relationships, improved deal flow, and greater long-term trust.
The organizations that consistently stand out in litigation finance are not simply better at evaluating opportunities. They are better at demonstrating professionalism, clarity, and confidence from the very first interaction.
Because by the time formal case review begins, the first decision has often already been made.
