Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Jason Levine, Partner at Foley & Lardner LLP
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial

A Framework for Measuring Tech ROI in Litigation Finance

November 24, 2025

A Framework for Measuring Tech ROI in Litigation Finance

This article was contributed by Ankita Mehta, Founder, Lexity.ai – a platform that helps litigation funds automate deal execution and prove ROI.

How do litigation funders truly quantify the return on investment from adopting new technologies? It’s the defining question for any CEO, CTO or internal champion. The potential is compelling: for context, according to litigation funders using Lexity’s AI-powered workflows, ROI figures of up to 285% have been reported.

The challenge is that the cost of doing nothing is invisible. Manual processes, analyst burnout, and missed deals rarely appear on a balance sheet — but they quietly erode yield every quarter.

You can’t manage what you can’t measure. This article introduces a pragmatic framework for quantifying the true value of adopting technology solutions, replacing ‘low-value’ manual tasks and processes with AI and freeing up human capital to focus on ‘high-value’ activities that drive bottom line results  .

A Pragmatic Framework for Measuring AI ROI

A proper ROI calculation goes beyond simple time savings. It captures two distinct categories:

  1. Direct Cost Savings – what you save
  2. Increased Value Generation – what you gain

The ‘Cost’ Side (What You Save)

This is the most straightforward calculation, focused on eliminating “grunt work” and mitigating errors.

Metric 1: Direct Time Savings — Eliminating Manual Bottlenecks 

Start by auditing a single, high-cost bottleneck. For many funds, this is the Preliminary Case Assessment, a process that often takes two to three days of an expert analyst’s time.

The calculation here is straightforward. By multiplying the hours saved per case by the analyst’s blended cost and the number of cases reviewed, a fund can reveal a significant hard-dollar saving each month.

Consider a fund reviewing 20 cases per month. If a 2-day manual assessment can be cut to 4 hours using an AI-powered workflow, the fund reallocates hundreds of analyst-hours every month. That time is now moved from low-value data entry to high-value judgment and risk analysis.

Metric 2: Cost of Inconsistent Risk — Reducing Subjectivity 

This metric is more complex but just as critical. How much time is spent fixing inconsistent or error-prone reviews? More importantly, what is the financial impact of a bad deal slipping through screening, or a good deal being rejected because of a rushed, subjective review?

Lexity’s workflows standardise evaluation criteria and accelerate document/data extraction, converting subjective evaluations into consistent, auditable outputs. This reduces rework costs and helps mitigate hidden costs of human error in portfolio selection.

The ‘Benefit’ Side (What You Gain)

This is where the true strategic upside lies. It’s not just about saving time—it’s about reinvesting that time into higher-value activities that grow the fund.

Metric 3: Increased Deal Capacity — Scaling Without Headcount Growth

What if your team could analyze more deals with the same staff? Time saved from automation becomes time reallocated to new higher value opportunities, dramatically increasing the value of human contributions.

One of the funds working with Lexity have reported a 2x to 3x increase in deal review capacity without a corresponding increase in overhead. 

Metric 4: Cost of Capital Drag — Reducing Duration Risk 

Every month a case extends beyond its expected closing, that capital is locked up. It is “dead” capital that could have been redeployed into new, IRR-generating opportunities.

By reducing evaluation bottlenecks and creating more accurate baseline timelines from inception, a disciplined workflow accelerates the entire pipeline. 

This figure can be quantified by considering the amount of capital locked up, the fund’s cost of capital, and the length of the delay. This conceptual model turns a vague risk (“duration risk”) into a hard number that a fund can actively manage and reduce.

An ROI Model Is Useless Without Adoption

Even the most elegant ROI model is meaningless if the team won’t use the solution. This is how expensive technology becomes “shelf-ware.”

Successful adoption is not about the technology; it’s about the process. It starts by:

  1. Establish Clear Goals and Identify Key Stakeholders: Set measurable goals and a baseline. Identify stakeholders, especially the teams performing the manual tasks- they will be the first to validate efficiency gains.
  2. Targeting “Grunt Work,” Not “Judgment”: Ask “What repetitive task steals time from real analysis?” The goal is to augment your experts, not replace them.
  3. Starting with One Problem: Don’t try to “implement AI.” Solve one high-value bottleneck, like Preliminary Case Assessment. Prove the value, then expand. 
  4. Focusing on Process Fit: The right technology enhances your workflow; it doesn’t complicate it.

Conclusion: From Calculation to Confidence

A high ROI isn’t a vague projection; it’s what happens when a disciplined process meets intelligent automation.

By starting to measure what truly matters—reallocated hours, deal capacity, and capital drag—fund managers can turn ROI from a spreadsheet abstraction into a tangible, strategic advantage.

By Ankita Mehta Founder, Lexity.ai — a platform that helps litigation funds automate deal execution and prove ROI.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.