Trending Now
  • Pravati Capital Establishes Coalition to Advance Responsible Litigation Funding Regulation Across U.S. Following Arizona Law’s Passage
Commercial Legal Innovation Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Podcast with Steve Shinn

December 13, 2021

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Podcast with Steve Shinn

On the latest episode of the LFJ Podcast, Steven Shinn, founder of FinLegal, described the solutions his platform provides for both funders and lawyers, and explains his company’s points of differentiation with other third party platform providers.

Q: Why move into litigation funding and after-the-event insurance? Can you explain how FinLegal’s offerings are different than those of traditional funders?

A: Absolutely. I think one of the challenges is that the litigation funding market could grow a great deal. But there are challenges where lawyers don’t necessarily understand litigation funding, and there are a lot more funders that you can go to. So you want to help educate people who are new to litigation funding and ATE about how to access it and how it works.

There are more funders joining, which is increasing the number of claims that get funded. So whereas before you might have only had funders looking to deploy $5 million to a claim, you now find situations where there are funders who want to deploy as little as $100,000 or less. So there’s a much broader range of funders…and it’s hard to go to all of them individually and it’s hard to know who’s in the market.

We thought, let’s build a sticky platform which provides the law firm with visibility and control over those funding requests, and let’s give them an online process (to write the best possible funding request) in terms of how it’s positioned to the funders so that it does get funding. With lots of funders to navigate, let’s build a platform to help lawyers navigate them, help them understand it—and let’s help them put forward the request with the best possible positioning.

Q: You mentioned getting involved in group actions (the UK version of US-style class actions). What got you interested in that space particularly, and does your technology background in any way penetrate that space?

A: Definitely. It started out as me seeing the VW group claim, and also seeing cartel claims, price-fixing on football shirts, and things like this. With my technology background, I thought ‘Well, how are law firms doing this?’

I saw that they had a lot of off-line case management platforms, they use a lot of spreadsheets. You know these systems didn’t talk to each other. There’s a lot of manual effort and no mobile interfaces for claimants to interact with the law firm. So I thought, ‘We can build a platform that will enable that.’ Essentially, we’d be taking a completely fresh look at it. With a technology and software development background and a product development background. How do we build/provide something that enables lawyers to spend the least time possible working with each claim. We know that’s important to the economics of the claim—not having to spend a lot of manual effort on each claim.

So that’s what we produced, a solution that works on a management by exception basis, so essentially the claimant goes through an automated set of steps. And where they fall out of those steps or where they don’t meet certain criteria, only then do they need to get picked up by the law firm.

Q: I know you offer a claim automation solution, can you explain what this solution does?

A: The main benefit of the solution is that it increases the volume of clients. So what you tend to find, is if there’s a bad claimant experience, people fall out of the process. You’ve spent money on acquiring that claimant, you spend advertising pounds or dollars to get them into your funnel, to start working with them. But they become disenfranchised from your process, right? Or they don’t like getting a lot of phone calls, or they feel like the process is insecure and it happens via Email without clear instruction. So if you have a good online process, it increases the volume of clients. That’s the first thing.

And it reduces the amount of time spent per client also, because…the law firm is only working with clients who fall out of the automated process. It’s also plug-n-play, so if you want to start work on a new type of matter it might be that this week you’re building a book of emissions claimants, and the following week you want to launch a shareholder claim.

You can launch that from the platform in a matter of days and start book building. You’re not having to have lots of different contractors and different systems that you have to modify to start doing something new or different. You talk to us, we set it up for you, and then you manage it through an interface that you’re very familiar with.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

ISO Approves New Litigation Funding Disclosure Endorsement

By John Freund |

A new endorsement from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) introduces a disclosure requirement that could reshape how litigation funding is handled in insurance claims. The endorsement mandates that policyholders pursuing coverage must disclose any third-party litigation funding agreements related to the claim or suit. The condition applies broadly and includes the obligation to reveal details such as the identity of funders, the scope of their involvement, and any financial interest or control they may exert over the litigation process.

According to National Law Review, the move reflects growing concern among insurers about the influence and potential risks posed by undisclosed funding arrangements. Insurers argue that such agreements can materially affect the dynamics of a claim, especially if the funder holds veto rights over settlements or expects a large portion of any recovery.

The endorsement gives insurers a clearer path to scrutinize and potentially contest claims that are influenced by outside funding, thereby shifting how policyholders must prepare their claims and structure litigation financing.

More broadly, this endorsement may signal a new phase in the regulatory landscape for litigation finance—one in which transparency becomes not just a courtroom issue, but a contractual one as well.

Case Developments Commercial

Innsworth Penalized for Challenge to Mastercard Settlement

By John Freund |

A major ruling by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a setback to litigation funder Innsworth Advisors, which unsuccessfully opposed the settlement in the landmark Mastercard consumer class action. Innsworth has been ordered to pay the additional legal costs incurred by class representative Walter Merricks, marking a clear message from the tribunal on the risks of funder-led challenges to settlements.

As reported in the Law Gazette, the underlying class action, one of the largest in UK legal history, involved claims that Mastercard’s interchange fees resulted in inflated prices passed on to nearly 46 million consumers. The case was brought under the collective proceedings regime, and a proposed £200 million settlement was ultimately agreed between the class representative and Mastercard. Innsworth, a funder involved in backing the litigation, challenged the terms of the settlement, arguing that it was disproportionately low given the scope and scale of the claim.

The CAT, however, rejected Innsworth’s arguments and sided with Merricks, concluding that the settlement was reasonable and had been reached through an appropriate process. Moreover, the tribunal found that Innsworth’s intervention had caused additional work and expense for the class representative team—justifying the imposition of cost penalties on the funder.

For the litigation funding sector, this ruling is a cautionary tale. It underscores the importance of funder alignment with claimants throughout the litigation and settlement process, particularly in collective actions where public interest and judicial scrutiny are high.

Case Developments Commercial

Court Dismisses RTA‑Client Case

By John Freund |

Law firm Harrison Bryce Solicitors Limited had attempted a counterclaim against its client following the dismissal of a negligence claim against the firm. First the counterclaim was dismissed, and now the appeal against the counterclaim's dismissal has also been dismissed.

According to the Law Society Gazette, Harrison Bryce argued that it had been misled by its client, Abdul Shamaj, who had claimed to have sustained injuries in a road traffic accident (RTA) and instructed the firm accordingly.

Shamaj retained Harrison Bryce on the basis of a purported RTA injury claim, and the firm later brought professional negligence proceedings against the client, alleging that the claim lacked credibility. Shamaj, in turn, mounted a counterclaim against the firm.

Both the negligence claim and the counterclaim were dismissed at first instance, and the Harrison Bryce's appeal of the dismissal of the counterclaim has now been refused.

The key legal takeaway, as highlighted by the judge, is that simply pleading that the client misled the firm is not sufficient to make out a viable counterclaim. The firm needed to advance clear and compelling evidence of the client’s misrepresentation, rather than relying on allegations of general misled conduct.