Rockpoint Legal Funding today released The 2025 Lawsuit-Duration Index, a first-of-its-kind analysis that ranks U.S. states by the average time it takes a routine civil lawsuit to reach resolution. Drawing on thousands of line-items from trial-court dashboards, annual judiciary reports, and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) case-flow datasets, the study shines a light on the calendar realities behind America's crowded dockets.

States Where Civil Cases Last the Longest

1. New York — ≈ 30 months
   Why so long? Dense commercial caseloads, heavy discovery, and a "deferred note-of-issue" system that gives parties up to a year to certify readiness can stretch the calendar. Even though New York's Differentiated Case Management (DCM) rule sets a target of 15 months from filing to judgment, backlogs in the Supreme Court's civil terms routinely push cases to double that figure.
2. California — ≈ 24 months
   Unlimited-jurisdiction civil matters must, by statewide standard, wrap up within two years, yet fiscal-year dashboards show that fewer than 80 percent of cases hit the 24-month mark, with the remainder spilling into a third year. Factors include large jury pools, complex consumer statutes, and pandemic-era continuances that have not fully cleared. 
3. Florida — ≈ 20 months
   Circuit-court dashboards reveal that barely half of ordinary negligence and contract suits close inside 18 months. Although the Supreme Court adopted aggressive case-management rules in 2023, trial-level clearance rates are still catching up, and hurricane-related insurance litigation continues to clog calendars. 
4. Illinois — ≈ 18 months
   Cook County alone processes more than 250 000 civil filings a year. Medical-malpractice caps were struck down a decade ago, and lengthy expert-witness phases keep many cases open well past the 1½-year horizon set by the state's Time-Standards order. Tort hotspots in Madison and St. Clair Counties skew the statewide mean upward. (Source: Illinois Courts Statistical Summary, 2024).
5. Texas — ≈ 14 months
   A statewide "Age of Cases Disposed" audit for fiscal year 2023 shows that 58 percent of district-court civil cases are resolved inside a year; another 12 percent finish by 18 months; the remainder stretch longer, producing a weighted average of roughly 430 days. Urban districts with multicounty venues (Harris, Dallas, Bexar) post the slowest numbers

National context: Across 19 benchmark jurisdictions surveyed by the NCSC, the mean time to disposition for civil matters was 43 weeks—just under eleven months—highlighting how outlier states pull the national average upward.

Why Do Timelines Vary So Widely?

• Caseload Mix – States dominated by high-stakes personal-injury, medical-malpractice, or complex commercial cases run longer discovery schedules than states whose dockets lean toward simpler contract or small-claims matters.
• Procedural Rules – Broad discovery allowances (New York CPLR, California CCP) and generous continuance policies add months. Fast-track "rocket-docket" rules, used in parts of Texas and Virginia, compress schedules.
• Judicial Resources – Trial-level judge-to-population ratios range from 3.9 per 100 000 residents in California to 2.6 in Texas; shortages translate directly into fuller calendars and later trial dates.
• Backlog Hangover – Pandemic pauses left hundreds of thousands of jury-demand cases unresolved; courts that pivoted to virtual hearings (Florida, Texas) cleared inventory faster than states that waited for in-person sessions.
• Local Legal Culture – In some venues, strategic delay is a negotiation tactic. High defense-side insurance penetration can encourage "wait it out" settlement strategies, particularly in auto-injury suits.

Economic and Human Costs

• Direct Expense – The U.S. tort system cost $443 billion in 2022—about 2.1 percent of GDP—according to the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. Longer case cycles increase those costs by boosting attorney hours, expert-witness fees, and carrying charges.
• Business Impact – Protracted litigation discourages expansion in plaintiff-friendly states and inflates liability-insurance premiums, costs ultimately passed to consumers.
• Personal Hardship – Plaintiffs waiting years for compensation often face medical bills, lost wages, or repair costs they cannot defer. Delays disproportionately harm low-income claimants who lack emergency savings.

How Legal Funding Fits In

"Justice delayed shouldn't be justice denied," said Maz Ghorban, President of Rockpoint Legal Funding. "Our non-recourse advances give injured people the breathing room to see their cases through rather than settling early for pennies on the dollar."

Because Rockpoint is only repaid if a case resolves favorably, the company's interests are aligned with plaintiffs pursuing full, fair value—even in jurisdictions where court calendars run two or three years past filing. Rockpoint underwrites claims nationwide but sees the highest funding volumes in the very states that top the duration list, confirming the link between long case cycles and financial strain.

Methodology

Rockpoint analysts aggregated more than 4.2 million disposition records from:

• The National Center for State Courts case-flow dashboards (43-state sample, FY 2023).
• Individual judiciary statistical reports (California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, New York).
• County-level "age-of-case" spreadsheets for large urban districts.

Cases involving small-claims, probate, or family-law matters were excluded to isolate routine civil tort and contract litigation. Mean and median days were calculated, then rounded to the nearest month for readability.

Looking Ahead

State supreme courts in Florida and Texas have adopted stricter case-management orders requiring active judicial oversight at the 90- and 180-day marks; California lawmakers are weighing pilot "civil fast-track" programs modeled on federal Rule 26(f). If fully implemented, those reforms could shave six to nine months off average durations over the next three years.

For more information on how Rockpoint Legal Funding can help plaintiffs bridge the financial gap while their cases wind through the courts, visit rockpointlegalfunding.com.

Supio, a legal AI platform trusted by personal injury and mass tort plaintiff law firms, today announced it has raised $60 million in Series B funding. The round was led by existing investor Sapphire Ventures, with participation from new investors Mayfield and Thomson Reuters Ventures. The new investment brings Supio's total funding to date to $91 million.

The company's unique approach to combining specialized AI with human expert verification has set a new standard for accuracy and reliability in legal AI, addressing the critical challenge of hallucinations that plague many automated solutions. This has been particularly valuable in litigation settings where precision and confidence in the data are paramount.

"Supio is transforming how personal injury and mass tort litigation is practiced through specialized AI," said Rajeev Dham, Partner at Sapphire Ventures and Supio Board Member. "We believe their exponential growth demonstrates that law firms are embracing AI tools that deliver measurable advantages in case preparation and outcomes. We aim to recognize a category-defining company when we see one, and we're proud to deepen our partnership with the team revolutionizing this practice area."

The Series B funding will support the company's ambitious growth plans, including expanding its engineering and AI research teams, accelerating product development and scaling go-to-market operations to reach more law firms nationwide. The company recently launched a new suite of document intelligence tools to meet the needs of current users as well as taking into account what AI capabilities work best for personal injury cases.

"This funding allows us to expand our AI platform that's already helping law firms win better settlements and litigation for their clients," said Jerry Zhou, co-founder and CEO of Supio. "Our combination of specialized legal AI and human verification provides attorneys with accurate insights and drafting they can confidently use in negotiations and court. We're building technology that doesn't just save time, but fundamentally improves case outcomes."

Strengthens Leadership Team to Meet Growing Market Demand

Supio also announced the appointment of several key executives to support its rapid growth, including Jay Deubler to lead Sales, Gwen Sheridan to lead Customer Success and Jim Sinai to head Marketing. Jay Deubler joins with proven experience scaling revenue at Avalara from early stages through IPO. Gwen Sheridan brings valuable expertise from Highspot where she led all post-sales functions. Jim Sinai, a vertical SaaS marketing specialist, previously launched Einstein AI at Salesforce and led Procore through its IPO.

“Our growth since Series A confirms what we’ve believed all along—that specialized AI built for personal injury and mass tort law can transform how these practices operate,” Zhou said. “By expanding our executive team, we’re positioning Supio to meet the tremendous market demand for our AI-first approach to legal document workflows, and to deliver concrete results: faster case resolution, stronger settlements, and ultimately better outcomes for the individuals seeking justice."

Accelerating Growth and Impact Since Series A

Since emerging from stealth in August 2024 with its $25 million Series A funding, Supio has experienced four times Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) growth and demonstrated the transformative impact of its AI platform. The company has significantly expanded its customer base, now serving many of the top personal injury and mass tort law firms across the United States including Huges & Coleman, Daniel Stark, Thomas Law Offices, and Whitley Law.

Supio's specialized AI platform has proven particularly valuable in helping firms win bigger. Firms such as Travis Legal Offices have reported getting at least 20-30% per case while Thomas Law reported increasing their annual case volume 62% since adopting Supio. In high-stakes litigation, Supio helped TorHoerman Law secure a landmark $495 million verdict against Abbott Labs. By combining AI-powered document analysis with rigorous human verification, Supio has established itself as the trusted solution for legal teams handling complex cases involving thousands of documents.

"Thomson Reuters Ventures invests in innovative companies that align with our strategic focus and the markets we serve. In the legal industry, personal injury and mass tort litigation demand specialized AI solutions designed specifically for these complex practice areas, and Supio addresses these unique challenges with both accuracy and depth," said Tamara Steffens, Managing Director, Thomson Reuters Ventures. "We're confident that Supio's platform, built from the ground up, will become essential for firms serious about maximizing case outcomes."

Photo and video assets available here.

About Supio

Supio is the leading AI platform transforming how personal injury and mass tort law firms build stronger cases and achieve superior outcomes. Supio’s Document Intelligence Platform converts complex case materials into actionable insights, combining specialized AI with human expert verification to ensure unmatched accuracy. Built with security and compliance at its foundation, Supio streamlines the entire case lifecycle—from pre-litigation analysis to courtroom strategy. Law firms using Supio report faster case resolution, higher settlement values, and deeper client trust through our precision-driven document analysis, advanced case economics, and intelligent drafting tools. Supio doesn't just save time—it fundamentally improves how legal teams work and win.

About Sapphire Ventures

Sapphire is a global software venture capital firm with $11.3+ billion in AUM and team members across Austin, London, Menlo Park and San Francisco. For over a decade, Sapphire has partnered with visionary management teams and venture funds to back companies of consequence. Since its founding, Sapphire has invested in more than 180 companies globally resulting in more than 30 Public Listings and 50 acquisitions. The firm's investment strategies — Sapphire Ventures, Sapphire Partners and Sapphire Sport — are focused on scaling companies and venture funds, elevating them to become category leaders. Sapphire's Portfolio Growth team of experienced operators delivers a strategic blend of value-add services, tools and resources designed to support portfolio company leaders as they scale.

Silver Bull Resources, Inc. (OTCQB:SVBL)(TSX:SVB) ("Silver Bull" or the "Company") provides an update on the progress of its international arbitration claim against the United Mexican States ("Mexico").

Silver Bull announces that it has filed its Reply to Mexico's Counter-Memorial in the arbitration that Silver Bull initiated on 28 June 2023 under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement ("USMCA") and the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA") before the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID"). Under the current schedule, Mexico now has until August 26, 2025 to file its Rejoinder before the case proceeds to a hearing, which will commence on October 6, 2025.

A summary of the key points of Silver Bull's claim is provided below:

• The arbitration arises from Mexico's refusal to take action with respect to the illegal blockade of Silver Bull's Sierra Mojada Project, which commenced in September 2019 and remains ongoing. Mexico's actions and omissions led to the complete loss of Silver Bull's investment, and breached Mexico's obligations under the NAFTA, including the prohibition on unlawful expropriation and the duties to provide full protection and security, fair and equitable treatment, national treatment and most-favored nation treatment.
• Silver Bull commenced the arbitration by filing a Request for Arbitration with ICSID on 28 June 2023. A three-person arbitration panel (the "Tribunal") was appointed by ICSID and they will adjudicate the case. Silver Bull filed its Memorial on 17 June 2024, setting out its claim in full and presenting supporting evidence. Mexico filed its Counter-Memorial on 23 December 2024, setting out its defence and presenting its evidence in response to the claim.
• In the Reply filed on April 25, 2025, Silver Bull responded to Mexico's Counter-Memorial and provided further evidence to support its claim. In its Reply, Silver Bull updated its damages claim to US$374.9M (including interest), supported by the opinion of its damages expert.
• Mexico will file its Rejoinder, responding to Silver Bull's Reply, on 26 August 2025. The hearing in the arbitration will take place from 6-10 October 2025.
• The Company hired Boies Schiller Flexner (UK) LLP ("BSF") to act on its behalf as legal counsel for the claim. BSF is an international law firm with extensive experience in international investment arbitration concerning mining and other natural resources. The BSF team is led by Timothy L. Foden, a noted practitioner in the mining arbitration space.
• Silver Bull is financially supported by Bench Walk Advisors LLC via a Litigation Funding Agreement for up to US$9.5 million to finance the case and the running of the Company.

Silver Bull's CEO, Mr. Tim Barry commented, "While Silver Bull had intended to continue developing the Sierra Mojada Project, an illegal blockade initiated in September 2019 by a small group of local miners - seeking to extort an unearned royalty payment from the Company has persisted to this day. Despite obtaining a favorable ruling from the Mexican courts dismissing the group's royalty claims, and despite repeated requests for the Mexican Government to enforce the law and remove the illegal blockade, the Government has continuously elected not to act. As a result, Silver Bull has been denied access to the site for more than five years, preventing the Company from conducting its lawful business activities in Mexico. This has led to the complete loss of Silver Bull's investment and the destruction of shareholder value at Sierra Mojada. The Mexican Government's actions and inactions directly drove investors away and effectively expropriated the Sierra Mojada Project.".

BACKGROUND TO THE CLAIM: The arbitration has been initiated under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States process, which falls under the auspices of the World Bank's ICSID, to which Mexico is a signatory.

Silver Bull officially notified Mexico on March 2, 2023 of its intention to initiate an arbitration owing to Mexico's breaches of NAFTA by unlawfully expropriating Silver Bull's investments without compensation, failing to provide Silver Bull and its investments with fair and equitable treatment or full protection and security, and not upholding NAFTA's national treatment standard.

Silver Bull held a meeting with Mexican government officials in Mexico City on May 30, 2023, in an attempt to explore amicable settlement options and avoid arbitration. However, the 90-day period for amicable settlement under NAFTA expired on June 2, 2023, without a resolution.

Despite repeated demands and requests for action by the Company, Mexico's governmental agencies have allowed the unlawful blockade to continue, thereby failing to protect Silver Bull's investments. Consequently, Silver Bull is seeking to recover an amount of US$374.9M (including interest) in damages that it has suffered due to Mexico's breach of its obligations under NAFTA.

THE SIERRA MOJADA DEPOSIT: Silver Bull's only asset is the Sierra Mojada deposit located in Coahuila, Mexico. Sierra Mojada is an open pittable oxide deposit with a NI 43-101 compliant Measured and Indicated "global" Mineral Resource of 70.4 million tonnes grading 3.4% zinc and 38.6 g/t silver for 5.35 billion pounds of contained zinc and 87.4 million ounces of contained silver. Included within the "global" Mineral Resource is a Measured and Indicated "high grade zinc zone" of 13.5 million tonnes with an average grade of 11.2% zinc at a 6% cutoff, for 3.336 billion pounds of contained zinc, and a Measured and Indicated "high grade silver zone" of 15.2 million tonnes with an average grade of 114.9 g/t silver at a 50 g/t cutoff for 56.3 million contained ounces of silver. Mineralization remains open in the east, west, and northerly directions.

Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today releases its latest Burford Quarterly, a journal of legal finance that explores the top trends at the nexus of law and finance. As legal finance continues to be used as a transformative resource for both corporations and law firms, this edition provides data, analysis and expert commentary on industry developments.

In this edition, leading law firm attorneys explain how legal finance is reshaping traditional contingency fee models, patent lawyers discuss the first year of data from the United Patent Court (UPC) and Burford experts present new data-driven findings on the enforcement of judgments, as well as a timely analysis of the synergies between private equity and legal finance.

Articles in the Burford Quarterly No.2 2025 include:

• Contingency fee practices in the US: Insights from top litigators
  A discussion among US trial lawyers on the evolving use of contingency fee arrangements. The roundtable explores the advantages and challenges of contingency models, the impact of AI and legal tech and how legal finance increasingly complements traditional contingency structures.
• The UPC in focus: Patent lawyers on the first year of data
  Leading patent lawyers dissect the first year of data from the UPC, analyzing the most impactful rulings to date, lessons learned and future expected trends.
• Enforcement in arbitrations against sovereigns: What the data tell us
  Sovereign arbitration awards often face unique enforcement challenges. This article examines empirical data on enforcement outcomes and the role legal finance plays in helping claimants enforce and monetize awards.
• Private equity and legal finance: A strategic partnership
  Portfolio companies may have significant value locked in disputes that could generate cash and enhance equity value when an exit strategy is sought. 
• Five years of WAMCA (Dutch Act on the Resolution of Mass Damages in Collective Action) claims: Trends and takeaways
  A look at the first five years of the Netherlands' WAMCA regime, analyzing key trends in collective actions and the role of legal finance in supporting large-scale claims.

"With every edition, the Burford Quarterly aims to provide a lens into how legal finance is shaping the business of law," said David Perla, Vice Chair of Burford Capital. "This issue combines robust data with real-world outcomes to illustrate how legal finance has become a sophisticated financial strategy for optimizing cash flow, managing legal risk and unlocking capital across geographies and sectors. By combining data with expert commentary and case-specific insights, we demonstrate the tangible impact legal finance has on today's most sophisticated legal and business decisions."

About Burford Capital

Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset recovery, and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and works with companies and law firms around the world from its global network of offices.

For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com.

This announcement does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any ordinary shares or other securities of Burford.

The following was contributed by Joel Magerman, Managing Partner of Bryant Park Capital, a leading investment bank specializing in litigation finance, with over 35 completed transactions totaling more than $2.4 billion in this sector alone.

Executive Summary: 

• Third-party funding for consumer litigants has been a growing industry in the U.S. since the 1980s.  
• The need for third-party litigation funding emerged because banks do not typically provide advances to litigants whose only collateral is potential proceeds from lawsuits. 
• Today, there are over two hundred companies providing pre-settlement and medical lien litigation funding to individual claimants. 
• Over the past 25 years, consumer litigation finance has matured into an investment grade asset, with over 25 separate securitizations representing over $2.7 billion of invested capital since 2018. 

Why the need for litigation funding? Insurance companies have found that a plaintiff’s need for a financial settlement is often a driving force in settling a case for a lower amount than if the case runs its course to a hearing. Litigation financing provides equal footing to a plaintiff to pursue claims due to an injury they have incurred due to another party’s actions or negligence.

A recipient of litigation funding benefits from certainty and speed of funding, and the fact that the funding is non-recourse. For the attorney representing the client, litigation funding allows the legal process to play out and maximize the plaintiff’s settlement while providing some financial relief until a settlement is finalized. At the same time, third-party litigation funders see the potential upside in underwriting pending lawsuits and earning a return on non-recourse advances. Generally, third-party litigation funders have no control over the litigation they fund, allowing the plaintiff and their legal counsel to decide their legal strategy. 

Medical lien funding, which is closely related to consumer pre-settlement funding, provides funding to providers of medical services (imaging, doctors visits, physical therapy, surgery, etc.) to these same plaintiffs who cannot pay the medical provider until a claim is adjudicated and paid. Funding these liens is effectuated by buying the lien or the LOP (Letter of Protection) from the medical provider, depending upon state statutes.  

General Industry Data (Pre-Settlement Litigation Funding) 

• Funding amount as percentage of expected case value: ~10-15% 
• Typical funding size: $1,000-$50,000 
• Asset-level IRR for the funder: typically 25-35%  
• Multiple on invested capital: 1.4-2.0x 
• Weighted average life: 1-3 years 
• Application time to funding: typically a couple of days 
• Number of market funders: 200+ 
• Non-recourse to the plaintiff  

An Emerging Asset Class 

In recent years, consumer litigation financing has become more attractive to investors due to rising inflation, increasing interest rates, and volatility of many other classes of investments. The consistent robust returns that are uncorrelated with the economy make litigation funding attractive. Alternative lenders and multi-strategy funds have invested in litigation finance, with U.S. funders categorized into dedicated funders (specialize in litigation finance), multi-strategy funders (entities that have established a dedicated litigation finance strategy), and ad hoc funders (occasional participants in litigation finance). These investors have increasingly diversified their investments, by allocating funds to multi-claim portfolios and making fewer single-case investments. 

 Institutional investors have continued to enter the litigation funding industry, both through directly funding litigation and through providing billions of dollars of financing to litigation funding companies. There have been approximately $2.7 billion of securitizations of consumer pre-settlement assets since 2018, plus billions of dollars of advances to market participants from credit opportunity and hedge funds, as well as private equity firms such as Blackstone, Parthenon, Further Global, Edmond De Rothschild, and UBS. We expect that the investor sentiment of diversifying into litigation finance will continue in coming years. 

Learn More 

To uncover additional industry and investment insights, download the full BPC Litigation Finance Industry Primer.