Trending Now
  • Pravati Capital Partners with SEI to Bring Litigation Finance to Registered Investment Advisors
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.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

KPMG Appoints First U.S. Legal Services Chief as Arizona Alternative Business Structure Faces Scrutiny

By John Freund |

KPMG LLP has named Christian Athanasoulas as the inaugural head of KPMG US Legal Services, a newly created position aimed at expanding the Big Four firm's legal offerings in the United States. Athanasoulas, a Boston-based M&A tax practice leader with more than 25 years at the firm, will oversee efforts to integrate legal services with KPMG's broader corporate advisory platform.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the appointment comes one year after KPMG gained regulatory approval to operate as an alternative business structure in Arizona — making it the first Big Four firm permitted to run a U.S. law firm. The division focuses on work traditionally handled by in-house legal teams, including post-merger contract cleanup, entity dissolution, and vendor consolidation.

The expansion, however, faces growing regulatory pushback. Arizona's Committee on Alternative Business Structures has recommended rule changes that would require ABS firms to serve Arizona clients and provide direct legal services rather than operate as national referral networks. The Arizona State Bar has warned that some entities may be exploiting the framework without meaningfully benefiting Arizona residents.

The development is significant for the legal industry's evolving competitive landscape. KPMG operates globally with more than 3,000 licensed attorneys and has already expanded legal services in the UK and Australia. Traditional law firms view the firm's entry with caution, recognizing that its established corporate client base, substantial resources, and technology investments present a formidable competitive challenge to conventional legal service delivery models.

Case Developments Commercial

U.S. Government Sides with Argentina in Discovery Dispute Over $18 Billion YPF Judgment

By John Freund |

The U.S. government has intervened in the long-running battle over an $18 billion judgment against Argentina, urging a federal judge not to hold the country in contempt for allegedly failing to produce official communications. The filing adds a significant layer to one of the largest litigation finance-backed disputes in history.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, former shareholders of YPF SA — Argentina's state-owned oil company — are seeking discovery of text messages and emails from Argentine government officials. The shareholders, backed by litigation funder Burford Capital, obtained the landmark judgment in 2023 after a court found that Argentina violated their rights through the 2012 nationalization of YPF.

The discovery effort is central to the shareholders' collection strategy. Plaintiffs argue that the communications could demonstrate that Argentina's state-owned banks and national airline function as "alter egos" of the government — a legal theory that, if successful, would allow them to pierce corporate structures and pursue assets held by those entities to satisfy the judgment.

The U.S. government's decision to back Argentina in the discovery fight underscores the diplomatic sensitivities at play. Sovereign discovery disputes of this scale raise complex questions about foreign government immunity and international comity. For the litigation finance industry, the case remains a closely watched test of whether third-party-funded enforcement actions against sovereign nations can ultimately yield meaningful recoveries on judgments of this magnitude.

Commercial

UPC Court of Appeal Rules Litigation Insurance Can Replace Multimillion-Euro Security Deposits

By John Freund |

The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal has issued a landmark ruling that could reshape how patent disputes are funded across Europe. In a decision overturning four million Euros in security for costs orders, the court held that properly structured litigation insurance policies can fully satisfy a defendant's right to costs recovery — eliminating the need for cash deposits or bank guarantees.

As reported by McDermott Will & Schulte, the ruling arose from the case of Syntorr v. Arthrex. McDermott partners Hon.-Prof. Dr. Henrik Holzapfel and Dr. Laura Woll represented Syntorr in the appeal, successfully arguing that the plaintiff's litigation insurance policy contained sufficient protections to address the court's concerns.

The court identified several features that satisfied its requirements for adequate security, including non-voidability provisions, direct rights for the defendant to claim against the insurer, straightforward payment triggers, and placement with an EU-authorized Solvency II insurer. Together, these anti-avoidance endorsements provided the court with confidence that the defendant's interests were adequately protected.

The decision carries significant implications for the litigation finance industry. By establishing that well-structured insurance products can substitute for cash security, the ruling creates a clearer pathway for patent holders — particularly smaller innovators — to pursue claims in the UPC without immobilizing substantial capital. The court's framework effectively balances defendant protection with access to justice, signaling that the UPC is open to modern funding mechanisms in patent enforcement proceedings.