Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Insurance

By John Freund |
October 1, 2024

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Insurance

On September 26th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled “Spotlight on Insurance.” The panel discussion featured David Kerstein (DK), Founder and Managing Director at Arcadia Finance, Michael Perich (MP), Director, Head of Litigation Insurance at Lockton Companies, Steve Jones (SJ), Managing Director, M&A, Litigation and Tax Practice at Gallagher, and Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer and Managing Director, Winward U.K. Limited. The panel was moderated by Jim Batson (JB), Chief Operating Officer at Westfleet Advisors.

Below are some key takeaways from the event:

JB: As Arcadia is a relatively new player in the litigation finance space, how has Arcadia incorporated insurance products into your underwriting and claims selection processes?

DK: As we were raising capital earlier this year, we explored using insurance to wrap a future portfolio, to potentially help drive fundraising and lower cost of capital. We weren’t able to do that as a first-time manager, but it’s something we’d like to explore in the future. We’re currently exploring traditional insurance products like JPI, and wrapping portfolios that may be on the edge of our mandate, and wrapping them in insurance would help us get to ‘yes.’

JB: So wrapping portfolios will help you look at some deals you might not otherwise consider?

DK: Exactly.

JB: Steve, can you give us an overview of the current Legal Insurance market? Especially focusing on recent developments in Capital Protection Insurance.

SJ: At the moment, I’m seeing a lot of innovation, so it seems like no two deals are the same, as there is a lot of creativity to get deals done. Very high submission rates, which probably suggests that knowledge of the products is increasing. And I see insurers and funders collaborating. It’s very seldom we see funders approach portfolio deals without thinking of insurance, and capital protection insurance (CPI) is the most obvious example of that. The net result of all of that is increased choice for clients, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

JB: Jeremy, how do you view the relationship between funders and insurers? Some have thought of insurers as competitors to litigation funders – an example is in the appeal context, where the client has the option of taking funding and de-risking immediately, or taking insurance and de-risking at conclusion of the matter. How do you see the relationship between insurers and funders evolving?

JM: I view it very much as a collaborative venture, for at least two specific reasons: One is the competition appeal tribunal (CAT) in the UK. You couldn’t go into the CAT without the support of the insurers. And that morphs into the concept of co-funding, which is growing. And you wouldn’t be able to do this without insurers, particularly when you’ve got a policy with an insurer and you’re invited to participate with somebody else, it might be syndicated with more than one funder– all the insurers are going to have positions in relation to that and you’re not going to get it off the ground without the insurers involved. It really is a team effort, as cases have lots of ups and downs.

Without a good relationship with an insurer, you’re not going to get off the ground. And particularly in a client-facing situation, you want insurers and funders to be speaking with the same voice, and often you’ll see in points of tension where clients and law firms sometimes, will try to play the ‘divide and rule game’ with insurers and funders. And we need to speak with a unified voice if we can. And I think that will grow in time, where insurers will play a bigger role in both the front and back end of a transaction.

JB: Michael, from your perspective, what are you seeing as the most interesting trends in terms of the intersection of insurance and litigation funding?

MP: Litigation insurance has been in the transaction space for quite a long time. What we’ve been seeing lately is a substantial uptick in deal flow based on increased awareness and knowledge of the product base. Some of that deal flow are things that are not insurable (in the US market) – things like portfolios of personal injury or mass tort cases. Those won’t be insurable in the US. But we’re seeing more IP and antitrust cases, and more interest around building a sustainable market that involves portfolio risks and complex pieces of commercial litigation that helps make a more efficient transaction for everybody. And that’s where all of the parties are getting more aligned. So over the past six months, we’ve been noticing a lot more collaboration and innovation lately, which is a good thing.

For the full panel discussion, please click here.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Uber Told £340m Group Claim Must Follow Costs Budgeting Rules

By John Freund |

In a notable ruling, the High Court has directed that a £340 million group action against Uber London Ltd will be subject to costs budgeting, despite the claim’s substantial size. The decision was handed down in the case of White & Ors v Uber London Ltd & Ors, where the total value of the claim far exceeds the £10 million threshold above which costs budgeting is typically not required under the Civil Procedure Rules.

According to Law Gazette, Mrs Justice O’Farrell chose to exercise judicial discretion to apply the budgeting regime. Her decision marks a significant moment for large-scale group litigation in England and Wales, underscoring the court’s growing interest in ensuring proportionality and transparency of legal costs—even in high-value cases.

An article in the Law Society Gazette reports that the ruling means the parties must now submit detailed estimates of incurred and anticipated legal costs, which will be reviewed and approved by the court. This move imposes a degree of cost control typically absent from group claims of this scale and signals a potential shift in how such cases are managed procedurally.

The decision carries important implications for the litigation funding industry. Funders underwriting group claims can no longer assume exemption from cost control measures based on claim size alone. The presence of court-approved cost budgets may impact the funders’ risk analysis and return expectations, potentially reshaping deal terms in high-value group actions. This development could prompt more cautious engagement from funders and a closer examination of litigation strategy in similar collective proceedings moving forward.

Commercial

Will Law Firms Become the Biggest Power Users of AI Voice Agents?

By Kris Altiere |

The following article was contributed by Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing for Moneypenny.

A new cross-industry study from Moneypenny suggests that while some sectors are treading carefully with AI-powered voice technology, the legal industry is emerging as a surprisingly enthusiastic adopter. In fact, 74% of legal firms surveyed said they are already embracing AI Voice Agents , the highest adoption rate across all industries polled.

This may seem counterintuitive for a profession built on human judgement, nuance and discretion. But the research highlights a growing shift: law firms are leaning on AI not to replace human contact, but to protect it.

Why Legal Is Leaning In: Efficiency Without Eroding Trust

Legal respondents identified labor savings (50%) as the most compelling benefit of AI Voice Agents.  But behind that topline number sits a deeper story:

  • Firms are increasingly flooded with routine enquiries.
  • Clients still expect immediate, professional responses.
  • Staff time is too valuable to spend triaging logistics.

Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing at Moneypenny, said:
“Some companies and callers are understandably a little nervous about how AI Voice Agents might change the call experience. That’s why it’s so important to design them carefully so interactions feel personal, relevant, and tailored to the specific industry and situation. By taking on the routine parts of a call, an AI agent frees up real people to handle the conversations that are more complex, sensitive, or high-value.”

For the legal sector, that balance is particularly valuable.

A Look At Other Industries

Hospitality stands out as the most reluctant adopter, with only 22% of companies using AI-powered virtual reception for inbound calls and 43% exploring AI Voice Agents.
By contrast, the legal sector’s 74% engagement suggests a profession increasingly comfortable pairing traditional client care with modern efficiency.

The difference stems from call types: whereas hospitality relies heavily on emotional warmth, legal calls hinge on accuracy, confidentiality, and rapid routing areas where well-calibrated AI excels.

What Legal Firms Want Most From AI Voice Agents

The research reveals where legal sees the greatest potential for AI voice technology:

  • Healthcare: faster response times (75%)
  • Hospitality: reducing service costs (67%)
  • Real estate: enhanced call quality and lead qualification (50%)
  • Finance: 24/7 availability (45%), improved caller satisfaction (44%), scalability (43%)

Legal’s top future use case is appointment management (53%).

This aligns neatly with the administrative pain points most firms face,  juggling court dates, consultations and multi-lawyer calendars.

Each industry also had high expectations for AI Voice Agent features, from natural interruption handling to configurable escalation rules.
For legal, data security and compliance topped the list at 63%.

This security-first mindset is unsurprising in a sector where reputation and confidentiality are non-negotiable.

Among legal companies, 42% said that integration with existing IT systems like CRM or helpdesk tools was critical.

This points to a broader shift: law firms increasingly want AI not just as a call handler but as part of the client-intake and workflow ecosystem.

The Bigger Trend: AI to Protect Human Time

Across every industry surveyed, one theme is emerging: companies don’t want AI to replace humans ,they want it to give humans back the time to handle what matters.

For legal teams, this means freeing lawyers and support staff from constant call-handling so they can focus on high-value, sensitive work.

Why This Matters for Law Firms in 2025

The AI adoption race in legal is no longer about novelty; it’s about staying competitive.

Clients expect real-time responses, yet firms are constrained by staffing and increasing administrative load. Well-designed AI Voice Agents offer a way to protect responsiveness without compromising on professionalism or security.

With compliance pressures rising, talent shortages ongoing, and client acquisition becoming more competitive, the research suggests law firms are turning to AI as a strategic solution and not a shortcut.

Moneypenny’s Perspective

Moneypenny, a leader in customer communication solutions, recently launched its new AI Voice Agent following the success of an extensive beta program. The next-generation virtual assistant speaks naturally with callers, giving businesses greater flexibility in how they manage customer conversations.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

LSB Launches Oversight Programme Targeting Litigation Growth

By John Freund |

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has unveiled a new consumer‑protection initiative to address mounting concerns in the UK legal market linked to volume litigation, law‑firm consolidators and unregulated service providers. An article in Legal Futures reports that the regulator cited “clear evidence” of risks to consumers arising from the dramatic growth of volume litigation, pointing in particular to the collapse of firms such as SSB Law.

Legal Futures reports that under the programme, the LSB will explore whether the current regulatory framework adequately protects consumers from harm in mass‑litigation contexts. That includes examining: whether all litigation funding – especially portfolio funding models – should fall under the supervision of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA); whether co‑regulation arrangements should be established between the FCA and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA); and whether the list of reserved legal activities needs revision to account for the rise of unregulated providers and AI‑enabled legal services.

On the law‑firm side the initiative spotlights the consolidation trend — especially accumulator or “consolidator” firms backed by private equity and acquiring large numbers of clients. The LSB flagged risks around viability, quality of client care and short‑term investor‑driven growth at the expense of compliance and long‑term service stability.

For the litigation‑funding sector, the message is unmistakable: the regulator will be more active in mapping the relationships between funders, law firms and client outcomes. It intends to use its market‑intelligence function to monitor whether misaligned incentives in the funding‑chain may harm consumers, and to obtain data from frontline regulators where necessary.