Explore LFJ’s Thought Leadership library and stay informed through cutting-edge insights and expert perspectives from industry leaders who are defining the legal funding landscape.

Robin Ganguly used to be a litigation funder and insurer, and is now a Partner at elite London disputes law firm CANDEY. Robin has almost 20 years of litigation and arbitration experience. He conducts a broad range of commercial, financial and insolvency disputes and has extensive experience of high-value international cases. Robin acts for large corporates and individuals alike, and is praised by clients for his commercial approach.

Prior to joining CANDEY, Robin spent almost 10 years at Magic Circle firm Linklaters, including secondments at investment bank clients, and four years at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, where he led the contentious insolvency practice alongside his broader commercial litigation role. Robin then spent time at litigation funder Burford Capital and in the litigation insurance industry at Aon and Fidelis. Robin is therefore uniquely well placed to assist clients looking to obtain funding and insurance for their disputes, and to advise on disputes in relation to funding agreements and insurance policies.

Robin speaks French, Italian and Spanish. He is qualified as a Solicitor Advocate and can appear himself for clients before the Higher Courts of England and Wales.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Robin Ganguly:

We often work in collaboration with litigation funders to achieve access to justice for clients who have been defrauded and as a result of the fraud do not have funds to pursue expensive litigation. In those situations we use our deep experience of litigation funding and litigation insurance to put together the best structure for the risks in the case to be allocated among different stakeholders, which often means our firm taking on substantial fee risk.

One of our core practice areas is international trusts disputes. These cases are very challenging because they often involve arbitration and litigation in multiple jurisdictions, co-ordinating local firms, freezing injunctions and other emergency applications to attempt to secure assets for enforcement. These are all expensive processes which rely on a law firm (and sometimes litigation funders) to have faith and stand behind their clients for many years to avoid capitulation to the bad actors. When we achieve success in disputes such as these it makes all of the effort worth it.

Our cases often involve multiple offices (various of London, New York, BVI, Vienna, and we’ve got plans to open in Asia), and our ability to serve clients internationally is a key reason why clients come to us. In New York our team provides a transatlantic bridge between the US law firms with whom we co-counsel, and the CANDEY teams in other locations, but having one firm that’s able to take ownership of as many jurisdictions as possible ensures things run smoothly. Due to the way we are structured we are able to explore international contingency fee arrangements for clients, in a way that very few other firms can do.

At CANDEY we believe that everyone should have the right to legal representation so that they can bring their arguments before a court of law. Many firms will refuse to act on certain cases where they fear “biting the hand that feeds them”, or cases where they do not like the potential impact of being associated with certain claimants or arguments, but we feel that if all firms took those views, clients would not be able to test and enforce their legal rights, with a corresponding chilling effect upon the English legal system more broadly.

CANDEY has been vocal in championing the rule of law and refusing, along with the Bar Council, to allow prejudice to prevent anyone from being represented before the Courts on the basis of their race, religion or nationality.

We have a well-established fraud practice and involvement with organisations such as CFAAR in the UK, and we have been seeing increasing numbers of cryptocurrency disputes. These sometimes concern fraudulent investment schemes and in those cases the catch is often obtaining a “book” of victims that is large enough and organised enough to make a case economically viable for a law firm or funder to back. Building the book costs money so it can be chicken and egg. Due to the international nature of cryptocurrency, the cases frequently involve competing claims on frozen assets by different states or prosecutors and therefore have a political dimension which can be difficult to predict.

The litigation funding market in the UK is experiencing some challenges at the moment. As is the global litigation insurance market (other than ATE) following large losses on complex judgment preservation policies. That makes it increasingly important for law firms to be able to share fee risk, either alongside funders or where funding cannot be obtained. We get a large number of enquiries from clients looking to us to represent them in their cases, big and small, and we are able to use our experience of funding and insurance to be able to advise clients whether the case is likely to attract funding and/or insurance and to put them in the best position to secure it. When enquiries come in, my role can feel very similar to my previous role at Burford Capital: assessing the legal theory and case merits but also looking ahead to enforcement and whether the damages are likely to be large enough to make the case viable. In terms of case type, we always see plenty of shareholder disputes, contract disputes and trust disputes, and those types of claim have not seen the same souring of attitudes or aggregation issues among funders or insurers as, say competition cases.

Kevin Prior has been sourcing funding for regulated Law Firms since 2019 and has over 30 years’ experience in investment structuring, principally in the Real Estate development sector. He was responsible for securing the finance line for a high profile UK GLO project, as well as assisting law firms in representing individual claimants in over 15,000 settled cases.

Before moving into the litigation funding sector, Kevin created and piloted a regulated crowdfunding firm and a specialist distressed property fund. He has a background in economics, which coupled with his vast commercial experience allows him to make clear assessments of prospective borrowing law firms from the outset of Seven Stars’ due diligence processes.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Kevin Prior, CCO of Seven Stars Legal: 

What specific strategies does Seven Stars employ to ensure market-leading investor returns in the litigation finance sector?

Our view has always been that the key to successful litigation financing lies in the selection of cases or case types to fund, which is why we take the time to select cases that we believe offer the most secure route to a successful and profitable judgment, delivering results for the business and its investors.

Rather than funding class actions and other high-risk, high-return litigation, we work at the other end of the spectrum, specifically targeting precedent-based claims or claims brought under UK Government compensation schemes or Acts. This approach significantly reduces the risk involved and enables us to target ambitious returns and highlight the opportunity of our litigation finance solution as an alternative asset investment.

We insist on After The Event insurance cover on funded cases where cases may be settled in England or Wales or where a risk of adverse costs may exist. In addition, we only fund cases against liquid entities, such as banks or housing associations, or where claims go to organisations like the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which exists in the UK to pay redress to clients when financial institutions or financial advisers fail.

Finally, at claim level, we establish minimum claims values for each specific case type, which as well as ensuring sufficient capital cover means that our investors can achieve a return, the law firm in question can run claims sustainably and, most importantly, that claimants get the compensation they deserve.

In addition, to help ensure liquidity and cash flow via coupon payments for investors, as well as for broader strategic reasons like risk mitigation, we follow what we call the 30/30 rule, meaning that we aim to have no more than 30% of our funds committed to a single law firm or case type, and as we continue to diversify our activities are fast working towards a balance closer to 9% - 11% as our maximum exposure in any one area.

Our due diligence process is multi-faceted, covering our borrowing law firms at both the initial stage of signing a funding agreement, again when the law firm requests a drawdown of funds, and, if we’re funding a case type for the first time, a comprehensive review of the legal position and opportunity around such claims.

To assess whether a specific case type is suitable for funding, we review various aspects including the level of funding required, the potential returns, and sought independent counsel opinion on the claim or case type before making a decision as to whether to fund. The nature of our process means that it’s feasible we would identify that a claim type can generate a specific level of returns but would require too much funding for it to be viable, although likewise, case types that require very little funding may generate relatively small returns, meaning we wouldn’t fund those unless there was a high enough volume of claims to make it worthwhile for all parties.

To come back to the firms, while our partner law firms conduct their own robust due diligence as a prerequisite for their own business requirements, we conduct our own independent verification process. This ensures a second layer of security and aligns with our own stringent criteria, which apply to both the initial funding proposal as well as the specific request for a tranche of funding.

Then, when the borrowing law firm comes to us, we review all the case files for which they are seeking funding, checking their files include all the relevant and correct documents, and a verification of the case and claimant details, the latter being where we’d identify and ensure that the defendant is solvent. For each claim type, we have a strict list of criteria that must be met for us to commit funding to a specific case, so it’s possible that an approved law firm could request a drawdown of funds but we’d only provide funding for the claims that meet our criteria.

The level of due diligence we need to go into differs depending on the case type. For example, if a pension mis-selling claim is going to the FSCS we know that it will pay out, so we can focus less on the solvency of the defendant and more on the technical aspects of the claim and the likelihood of it succeeding.

All of these processes are subject to two levels of due diligence. The first level is our operational management team, who should they approve a specific case type or law firm after collecting and reviewing a substantial tranche of data then pass this information along with a recommendation to our Advisory Panel, which includes a highly regarded King’s Counsel. The Advisory Panel then reviews this information independently to make a decision on whether to fund a specific case type and/or provide funding to a specific law firm.

To further enhance our Governance structure as well as strengthen the level of independent oversight within our due diligence processes, we’re currently at the advanced stages of appointing an external auditor to conduct pre-lending and firm auditing due diligence processes, which will also give us further capacity to scale our due diligence pipeline, attract further investment, and distribute monies to approved law firms.

Our Security Trustee sits external to the whole process, only getting involved on behalf of our investors if we were to default on our payments to them. So the Security Trustee would step in were we to default, and take action based on the debenture and floating charge they hold over all Seven Stars assets, which includes bank accounts, physical assets AND the debentures and fixed and floating charges we hold over our borrowing law firms.

As such we have two layers of structured security for our investors. There is what the Security Trustee holds over ourselves, but there is also what we hold over the law firms, which include fixed and floating charges over their assets, as well as the right to re-assign cases to another law firm in the event they default on their funding agreement with ourselves.

This is further supported by our ongoing risk mitigation and analysis that we conduct in relation to borrowing law firms, which includes our funding going into a segregated bank account within the law firm, conducting monthly management accounts and retaining bank account access, and conducting ongoing audits of the borrowing law firm’s claims book. We’re currently in the process of making our ongoing audits fully automated by introducing AI to conduct this process, while retaining a human, physical element and manually auditing up to 10% of the claims book we’re funding with each law firm per month, depending on borrowings, the claim type, and other factors.

While we have comprehensive governance and risk mitigation strategies in place that inform all we do, our most significant learning – and one that we continue adapting to as we go – is the importance of having room to be agile and flexible in our approach to funding different case types and law firms, which is predominantly led by the 30/30 rule that I explained earlier.

I’ve outlined a little about our case selection process and due diligence earlier, but what I’d add to that is one thing we have picked up on is that there’s often an appetite from investors to commit funds even if a legal picture isn’t 100% clear. And to that end, it’s vital that we continue to monitor and are active in specific sectors even if there’s little to no movement in them. A good example would be business energy claims, where we had committed funding prior to an adverse decision handed down in early 2024, which was subsequently overturned by a later hearing. They key here is that we didn’t overexpose – we were nowhere near 30%, for example – and so were able to continue operating and supporting the borrowing law firm even while the legal picture was unclear.

We’ve seen similar recently in car finance claims – we know of one funder that committed around 80% of its lending book to such cases in 2024, but that cash is now tied up until probably March 2026 at the very earliest, when compensation payments look like they’ll commence. In contrast, we’ve been more cautious around this case type and are awaiting final legal and regulatory decisions before committing to an approach.

An excellent example of our approach to risk management succeeding can be seen in our acquisition of the non-legal assets of Sandstone Legal earlier this year. Sandstone Legal were a firm that we had previously provided funding for and had passed all our usual due diligence checks, but for various reasons continued to face financial difficulties. Our funding agreements ensured that we were able to acquire those cases through the firm’s insolvency and assign them to new law firms to run them to completion, many of which have already started generating returns for our investors. All of this was done with Solicitors Regulation Authority oversight, enabling us to act quickly and help cases to move forward quickly to the benefit of the claimants involved.

The regulatory picture in the UK is still evolving. In June, the Civil Justice Council published its Final Report into third-party litigation funding, which called for minimal regulation where funding is provided to a commercial party and “greater, but still light touch” regulation where funding is going to a consumer or where funding is for a collective action.

Most notably, the CJC called for the reversal of the PACCAR ruling to happen as soon as possible, while the Court of Appeal also subsequently handed down a ruling that supports the litigation funding sector.

With all that being said, against this background there’s a significant opportunity for funders in different areas of the market to speak up, highlight what they do, and educate across the legal services sector as well as those who do seek to introduce stringent regulation.

One thing we’re passionate about and try to address in our content is that a lot of commentary around litigation funding is fairly narrow and exclusively focused on funding in the context of class actions. Now, when you consider stories like the Mastercard collective action where there’s been controversy between the funders and the lawyers and claimants are likely going to walk away with a negligible sum of money, it’s understandable that people will look at that and say litigation funding may cause problems.

But what we do is at the other end of the market, focusing on smaller, individual, mostly precedent-based claims that have a real impact on someone’s life, and collectively on society as a whole. There’s genuine difference-making on a human level in our approach that often isn’t discussed or even considered when talking about regulating the sector and making it difficult to provide funding.

Think the social housing tenant waiting months for repairs when their health is suffering, the pension mis-selling victim who doesn’t know if they can look forward to their retirement, or the bereaved spouse who wants to grieve but is facing an inheritance dispute. These are people who get the financial justice they deserve because Seven Stars and other funders lend a law firm money to run a specific case.

There are real people behind these stories and case studies, and as an industry we owe it to these people to highlight the impact litigation funding can and does have on their lives, rather than allowing the narrative of funding being a cash cow for funders and lawyers to proliferate.

Ken Epstein is a co-founder and principal of Backlit Capital Solutions and brings 25 years of experience in bankruptcy law, commercial litigation, restructuring and finance. Ken leverages his deep industry expertise to provide tailored solutions for companies, law firms, investors, and individuals navigating complex litigation and financial restructuring challenges.

Prior to co-founding Backlit, Ken was a Senior Investment manager and Legal Counsel in the New York office of Omni Bridgeway, a legal finance and risk management company, where he led the company’s U.S. insolvency litigation finance platform. In this role, he originated, structured, and managed a diverse portfolio of legal assets, playing a key role in many of the firm’s most significant transactions. Prior to his tenure at Omni Bridgeway, he was a managing director at MBIA, a public financial services company, where he led large-scale initiatives and crisis management efforts. He was also on the board of directors of MBIA Services Corp. Ken started his career as a lawyer at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, where he specialized in financial restructuring and corporate bankruptcy law.

Ken graduated from Brooklyn Law School (cum laude) and holds an accounting degree from the University of Maryland. Ken has also served as an adjunct professor of bankruptcy law at Cardozo Law School. He has been recognized in Who’s Who Legal: Thought Leaders – Third Party Funding Guide and the LawDragon Global Restructuring Advisors & Consultants Guide.

Matt Leland brings over 20 years of experience in commercial litigation and litigation finance to Backlit Capital Solutions.  Most recently, Matt was as an Investment Manager and Legal Counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of Omni Bridgeway.  There, Matt sourced and evaluated funding opportunities, negotiated deal terms, and monitored funded matters through to resolution.

Before Omni Bridgeway, Matt served as partner and as a commercial litigator for nearly two decades at AmLaw 100 firms King & Spalding LLP and McDermott Will & Emery LLP, experienced in all facets of civil litigation, including appeals, trials, arbitrations, and mediations. He successfully represented corporate clients engaged in diverse legal issues including government reimbursement claims, contractual disputes, unfair business practices, deceptive trade practices, civil RICO, and trademark infringement. Over his career, Matt helped clients recover hundreds of millions in damages and has extensive experience working closely with corporate executives and in-house counsel to develop budgets, fee structures, and strategies for all phases of litigation, including early case assessment, discovery, trial, and settlement. He has repeatedly been recognized in peer-reviewed guides including The Best Lawyers in America, Legal 500, and Super Lawyers.

Matt received his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center, where he was the Publications Director for The Tax Lawyer and The State and Local Tax Lawyer. He earned his B.A. in Political Science from the University of New Hampshire.

While earning his law degree, Matt was as a top aide for former U.S. Senator and Congressman John Sununu, after serving previously as the Deputy Campaign Manager on Mr. Sununu’s first campaign.

There’s been no better time to be a law firm seeking financing, as new investors enlarge the funding universe and options multiply. However, the landscape can be daunting and complex.  We invite those firms to take advantage of our experience.  We have spent years on the funding side of negotiations - evaluating claims and risks - and understand the nuanced distinctions between a fundable investment and one that gets passed over by litigation funders, lenders, and alternate investment sources.

Rather than simply connecting lawyers to potential sources of capital, we collaborate with firms, no matter their experience level, to implement comprehensive strategies that achieve specific financing goals.  We showcase the potential of their assets with smart strategic positioning and precise financial modeling to address the investment concerns of potential funding sources. And to drive successful fundraising, we help firms provide transparency with risk profiling, highlight their operational credibility, and seize upon tactics to mitigate unpredictability so that the firm can showcase high-grade opportunities.

Finally, to ease the burden of this process, we provide end-to-end transaction management.  We take on all of the complex and time-consuming tasks associated with legal funding so that clients can focus on providing first-rate legal services.

We appreciate that these are high-stakes transactions for both the investor and the claimant and our review is disciplined, transparent and robust. Each transaction is different and we provide additional services depending on the client’s need, but here’s how we approach every opportunity:

• Early-Stage “Pressure Testing”:  We test key legal theories, jurisdictional issues, damages, and enforcement risk with input from independent experts before approaching funders. Backlit will only move forward with quality transactions that bring clear value to all parties. Our funders know that we’ve done the work and stand behind every law firm and claimant we represent.

• Contingent Insurance Products:  Whether for judgment preservation or adverse cost coverage, we’ll provide detailed financial modeling and help source appropriate products that can reduce litigation risk and, in turn, improve pricing or expand access to capital.

• Post-funding Oversight:  We offer ongoing monitoring of case progress, legal developments, and emerging risks.  Our proactive oversight, combined with strategic advisory services, allow for early adjustments to protect investments and provide better measures of valuation as the investment moves through the litigation process. Further services include exploration of secondary market options when an investor wants to acquire or monetize a litigation asset.

By combining deep legal and financial expertise with market tools, Backlit ensures that risk is not just identified, but actively managed.   

We’re always focused on potential shifts in the market.  At Backlit, our experience comprises not only litigation finance, but also decades of credit analysis, restructuring, commercial litigation, and government policymaking.  This expertise enables us to identify how trends in financial, legal, and public sectors might influence litigation funding, and this positions Backlit extremely well for what we see as the biggest catalyst in the market – the addition of significant new funding capacity driven by new investors in the sector, like hedge funds, family offices and middle-market institutions. This provides a great opportunity for claimants and law firms looking for funding, but also injects unprecedented complexity into the marketplace.

At Backlit, we developed our services to not only identify, but capitalize, on opportunities for clients on either side of these transactions. Our connections with and understanding of the private capital space allow Backlit to find and structure deals that address the financial, operational and reporting requirements of all parties. As this market continues to grow, we’re positioned to create exciting new investment opportunities for funders and drive strong deals for clients seeking capital.

We expect that over time, most of our business is likely to be on the brokerage side and we are actively working with numerous clients to develop solutions to their diverse funding needs. In the short period since our launch there are two particular engagements that demonstrate the breath of the services we offer beyond traditional funding.

In the first, we have been engaged as an expert in a multibillion-dollar, high-profile bankruptcy litigation to assist a private equity client in the valuation of a complex litigation asset. Backlit has provided counsel, analytics and testimony in support of the client’s position. Our broad in-house capabilities and market expertise allow us to quickly analyze and deliver valuations that support our clients’ goals and survive deep scrutiny.

We have also been engaged on a project basis to help a large multi-billion dollar investment fund evaluate, structure and close a large loan transaction backed by a legal claim.  The borrower’s existing lending relationship ended when the share collateral was involuntarily converted into a legal claim due to litigation surrounding a merger of the entity that had issued the shares.  This was a time sensitive transaction with high stakes for all involved. Selecting legal counsel, working through conflicts, providing assistance on the unique features of legal finance - a discreet asset class - as part of the diligence and in-house deal team was a rewarding experience.

While we work across sectors, we have a proven specialty in maximizing litigation assets for entities in financial distress and insolvency. Claimants facing the challenges of bankruptcy often have few other meaningful assets, and are extremely capital-restricted in their ability to effectively pursue damages. Additionally, these parties have fiduciary duties that need to be satisfied fully and transparently. Running a robust marketing process and ensuring best pricing is in the best interest of the estates, will enable the trustees to defend their fiduciary decisions if challenged, and given the multiple interests in the case, ensure a fair process and optimization of assets.

With such complex interests to manage, these clients demand specialized approaches that differ significantly from traditional commercial litigation support.

• Funding for the debtor or trustee: We can help a debtor, bankruptcy trustee or litigation trustee secure funding to pursue legal claims (e.g., fraudulent transfer, preference, breach of fiduciary duty) or help support ongoing administrative costs. Our process ensures all parties are comfortable with transparency, discipline and reporting.
• Funding for creditors and committees: We can help creditors and committees push back on a debtor’s attempt to bury valuable claims because they don’t benefit management or insiders.  Consulting with us early in the process can help add negotiating leverage and drive up recoveries.
• Sale or assignment: When parties want to divest all or part of an estate asset, we can help sell or assign litigation claims and judgments, accelerating recoveries and ensuring a minimum return to stakeholders.
• Post-confirmation litigation trusts: When establishing a post-confirmation trust to investigate and prosecute claims, we can help drive a competitive process, ensuring that the trust is adequately funded and that key professionals are fairly compensated for their work.

• Financial metrics: The amount of funding sought and the value of the claim must be reasonable and proportionate.
• Duration: The maximum timeframe the fund is willing to wait for a return on its investment is five years.
• Respondent’s solvency: There must be sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the opposing party has the financial capacity to satisfy a potential award.
• Merits of the claim: The likelihood of success must be high, based on a legal and factual assessment.

• In Latin America, where the litigation funding industry is still in its early stages and claims tend to be smaller in value, we have observed increasing demand and a rising number of funding inquiries. We are funding more cases—particularly in the energy, mining, oil & gas, construction, and infrastructure sectors.
• In Europe, our activity has increasingly shifted toward portfolio funding, which provides greater risk diversification and operational efficiency. We are also seeing the rise of hybrid funding structures, involving partnerships with insurers and specialized litigation finance products tailored to complex cases.

Bo Moss is the Co-Founder and President of Bridgehead Legal Capital. A former litigator in Atlanta and Charlotte, Bo earned a reputation for being a tough but fair adversary. His deep understanding of the legal landscape led him to a Charlotte-based litigation funder, where he leveraged his litigation background to successfully underwrite and tailor loans for contingency fee law firms nationwide.

Since co-founding Bridgehead with Scott Richards and Megan Baer in 2021, Bo has spearheaded the company's mission to provide accessible capital to contingency fee lawyers. Under his leadership, Bridgehead has engaged in over 150 transactions, demonstrating his strategic vision and operational excellence. Bo is a graduate of The University of the South (Sewanee) and Samford University Cumberland School of Law.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Bo Moss:

Bridgehead Legal Capital emphasizes "Freedom Through Funding" and aims to be a long-term partner. Can you elaborate on how this mission guides your approach to client relationships and what specific long-term benefits firms can expect beyond just capital?

"Freedom Through Funding" isn't just a catchy phrase for us; it's the core of how we do business. As former litigators ourselves, we see every client relationship as a real partnership, all about helping you achieve sustained growth. So, beyond just giving you capital, here's what else firms gain:

• Smart Advice: We share insights on things like case selection, portfolio management, and growth strategies, drawing directly from our own legal experience. This makes sure our funding acts as a real boost for well-thought-out, lasting expansion.
• More Control: Our predictable capital gives your firm greater financial freedom. That means less pressure to settle cases too soon, the ability to invest in top-notch experts or the latest tech, and the capacity to take on more truly meritorious cases.
• Better Portfolio Management: We work hand-in-hand with you to understand your entire case pipeline, helping you spot opportunities to leverage your existing assets for future growth.
• We're Nimble and Responsive: We anticipate your evolving needs and quickly adapt, offering agile solutions that truly support your journey. We build relationships based on trust and a shared vision for success.

Your services include both Portfolio Loans and Asset Purchase Loans. For a small to mid-sized plaintiff law firm, how do you help them determine which product is the most advantageous for their specific financial needs and case pipeline?

Great question. When it comes to choosing between Portfolio Loans and Asset Purchase Loans, it really comes down to your firm's specific needs and what your case pipeline looks like. We don't do cookie-cutter solutions; instead, we go through a thorough, collaborative process:

• What are Your Goals? We kick things off by figuring out what you're really trying to achieve – whether it's managing daily expenses, investing in marketing, funding a big, complex case, or growing your team.
• Looking at Your Pipeline:
  • Portfolio Loans are usually best for firms with a diverse, ongoing stream of contingency cases. They let you tap into the collective value of your active cases, giving you consistent cash flow for general operations or bringing in new clients.
  • Asset Purchase Loans are a better fit if you have specific, high-value, well-developed cases. This lets you monetize a portion of the expected future recovery from that particular asset, giving you a bigger lump sum for targeted investments like major trial expenses.
• Comfort with Risk: We'll chat about your comfort level with recourse and how different repayment structures fit your risk appetite.
• Future Cash Flow: We'll project your future cash flow to show how each product impacts your financials, making sure the chosen solution genuinely helps your firm's health.

Ultimately, our job is to guide you in making a smart, strategic decision that truly aligns with your unique business model.

Bridgehead Legal Capital highlights its ability to unlock greater funding for plaintiff law firms by recognizing the value of their case portfolios. Could you explain the unique aspects of your underwriting process that allow you to assess and leverage these portfolios more effectively than traditional lenders?

Our ability to unlock more funding really comes down to our unique underwriting process, which is a big departure from traditional lenders who often just don't have our legal finance expertise:

• Litigator-Led Due Diligence: This is huge for us. Since many on our team, including founders, are former litigators, we inherently understand case merits, legal strategy, and the practicalities of litigation. We analyze legal strengths, attorney experience, jurisdiction, and potential settlement ranges, letting us accurately evaluate the true value of a portfolio where others might only see uncertainty.
• Our Own Valuation Models: We've built sophisticated, proprietary models that dig deep into factors specific to contingency fee litigation. This includes case type, complexity, damages assessment, jurisdictional nuances, and historical performance, allowing us to accurately value future earning potential.
• Portfolio Diversification Analysis: We're really good at understanding the collective strength of an entire portfolio of cases. By looking at diversification by type, litigation stage, and estimated value, we see a more stable asset, which in turn allows us to offer more substantial funding.
• Looking Forward: Unlike banks that often just look at past performance, we focus on the future earning potential of your active cases, assessing success probability and expected recovery.
• Relationship-Based Assessment: Our underwriting isn't just numbers; it's also about understanding your firm's operational efficiency, management capabilities, and overall business strategy. This holistic view gives us a more complete picture of your firm's creditworthiness.

This unique blend of legal expertise, sophisticated modeling, and a forward-looking, relationship-based approach is what allows us to leverage your case portfolio so much more effectively than traditional lenders.

The website mentions categories of loans such as "Start-up," "Case Investments," and "Growth Loan." How do you tailor the terms and support for a start-up firm compared to an established firm seeking a growth loan?

We know a brand-new firm has totally different needs than an established one looking to expand. That's why we tailor our loan terms and support accordingly:

For Start-up Firms:

• Terms: These loans are all about providing that essential working capital to get a solid foundation (think office space, tech, initial marketing, overhead). Repayment structures are often more flexible, maybe with interest-only periods or deferred principal payments, so you can focus on building your case pipeline. Our underwriting here really emphasizes your business plan, the founders' individual legal track records, and how viable your practice area is.
• Support: As former litigators, we offer invaluable mentorship on building a practice, from getting clients to managing cases efficiently. We can also connect you with other professionals in our network and provide scalable funding solutions as your firm matures.

For Established Firms (Growth Loan):

• Terms: These loans are primarily based on the proven value and predictable cash flow of your existing case portfolio, meaning much larger funding amounts are possible. With a solid track record, you'll typically qualify for more favorable interest rates and longer repayment periods. The terms are specifically designed to support your growth initiatives, whether that's expanding into new practice areas or acquiring another firm.
• Support: We provide advanced analysis of your portfolio, helping you spot opportunities for greater efficiency and profitability. We offer data-driven market insights and can help brainstorm strategies for expansion. For complex growth plans, we can even structure customized financial solutions.

Our whole philosophy is about making sure you get the right capital at the right time, with the right level of tailored support, so your firm, no matter its stage, can hit its full potential.

 Given the fast approval process and funds typically delivered within two weeks, what are the key factors that contribute to this efficiency, and what advice would you give to firms to ensure a smooth and rapid funding experience?

Our quick approval process and getting funds to you within two weeks really comes down to our specialized focus and streamlined operations:

• Specialized Expertise: We only do law firm financing. Our team can quickly and accurately assess legal assets without needing a ton of outside help. We just get the nuances.
• Streamlined Due Diligence: We've developed a super efficient process that focuses only on the critical information. We know what we need, and we don't ask for extra paperwork. Our internal systems are built for fast data intake and analysis.
• Agile Structure: As a private lender, we're simply less bureaucratic than big banks. That means quicker internal approvals and faster movement from your application to you actually receiving the funds.

To make sure your funding experience is as smooth and fast as possible, here's my best advice:

• Be Prepared and Organized: Have your firm's financial statements (past 2-3 years) and a detailed list of your active contingency cases (type, stage, estimated value, deadlines, and expenses) all ready to go. The more organized you are, the faster we can move!
• Know Your Needs: Clearly tell us exactly how much capital you need and what you plan to do with it. Saying something to us like “Well I am not entirely sure, maybe something in the range of _____” does not give us confidence that the firm has really spent the requisite amount of time properly reflecting upon their current and future funding needs and how our money is going to be used to assist in growing the firm.
• Designate One Point Person: Pick one person at your firm to be our main contact. This really helps streamline communication.
• Be Responsive: Our efficiency relies on your quick responses to any information requests or clarifications. The faster you get us what we need, the faster we can get you funded!

By partnering with Bridgehead Legal Capital, you're not just getting capital; you're gaining a strategic ally genuinely committed to your long-term success.

John J. Hanley is a Member in the Business Department at McDonald Hopkins and a key contributor to the firm’s Litigation Finance Practice Group. He advises clients across the litigation finance ecosystem on the structuring, negotiation, and execution of complex funding arrangements and financial transactions. With more than 20 years of experience at leading law firms, John brings deep transactional expertise in first- and second-lien credit facilities, private placements, and the purchase and sale of loans, claims, and other illiquid assets.

His clients include litigation funders, specialty finance companies, business development corporations, hedge funds, CLO managers, SPVs, and other institutional investors. John’s practice bridges traditional lending and litigation finance, allowing him to deliver sophisticated, market-informed solutions that align legal risk with commercial strategy.

Your team is Chambers-ranked litigation finance deal counsel. How does that recognition reflect the value you bring to clients in structuring funding arrangements?

We appreciate the recognition from Chambers in a field as specialized and fast-moving as litigation finance. For us, that ranking affirms the trust our clients place in us to structure and close their transactions and the respect we’ve earned throughout the litigation finance ecosystem.

At McDonald Hopkins, we get deals done. We prioritize what matters by focusing on value, clarity, and results. Our approach is practical and efficient, guiding clients from NDA to term sheet to definitive documents and, finally, to funding with strategic precision.

You’ve worked extensively in both lending and litigation finance. How does that dual experience shape your approach to structuring deals that align interests across the table?

My lending background grounds me in negotiating and documenting deals designed to achieve client objectives while aligning incentives across counterparties. In litigation finance, those fundamentals still apply, but the environment is more nuanced. Every deal involves its own set of dynamics and considerations.

In lending, you have established credit models, conventional security packages, and repayment terms that follow predictable patterns. In litigation finance, we're operating in a space where deal inputs aren’t standardized. Each transaction is built on a unique case or portfolio, layered with legal, factual, and procedural complexities that defy one-size-fits-all modeling. That nuance demands creativity and precision. There's no single template that works for every matter.

At McDonald Hopkins, we recognize that underwriting is typically the funder’s responsibility. When representing funders, our primary role is to translate that underwriting into a legal structure that aligns with the deal’s risk profile and commercial objectives. From time to time we are also engaged to assist with due diligence on the underlying litigation to help ensure that the legal and procedural posture of the litigation supports the funder’s investment thesis.

When representing funded parties, whether claimants or their counsel, our focus shifts to protecting their upside, independence, and long-term position. That involves more than simply reviewing documents. We must understand how the funder views the case, the risk and return profile, and anticipate how the litigation may unfold. With that knowledge, we are equipped to negotiate terms that are fair, enforceable, and sustainable.

What are some of the key legal or regulatory pitfalls funders and claimants should be looking out for when drafting a funding agreement?

A few stand out:

• Control: Excessive funder control can raise enforceability and ethical concerns. Decision-making authority must remain with the litigant in conjunction with their counsel. Overreach may implicate champerty or maintenance restrictions in jurisdictions where those doctrines are still active and may interfere with counsel’s duty of loyalty. Funders can and should monitor progress, but they shouldn’t steer litigation or settlement decisions. Of course, they can be a valuable sounding board.
• Attorney-Client Privilege: Often underappreciated, this area can present serious risk. If privileged information is shared during diligence or monitoring, the NDA must preserve the common interest doctrine to try to avoid waiver. You can’t take shortcuts here.
• Disclosure Risk: Courts and regulators are asking more questions, particularly in class actions, bankruptcies, and patent disputes. About 25% of U.S. federal district courts have local rules or standing orders requiring disclosure of third-party funding arrangements. Several states have enacted similar laws. These requirements vary by jurisdiction, so agreements should be drafted with the expectation that some level of disclosure may occur. Clarity, compliance, and defensibility are essential.
• Intercreditor Issues: In deals involving multiple funders or creditors, agreements should clearly define repayment priority, enforcement rights in default, and how proceeds are allocated. Settlement decisions must remain with the claimant and their counsel, but funders may seek consultation on resolutions that could materially affect anticipated returns. Well-drafted intercreditor provisions help align expectations and reduce the risk of disputes after funding.
• Proposed Tax Legislation: The “Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act” (S.1821), introduced by Senator Thom Tillis, would impose a 40.8% tax on profits earned by third-party funders. A revised 31.8% version appeared in the Senate’s draft of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” but was removed on June 30, 2025, after the Senate parliamentarian ruled it noncompliant with budget reconciliation rules.

While the tax is no longer part of active legislation, S.1821 remains under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee. If passed, it could apply retroactively to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025, with significant implications for deal pricing, structure, and tax treatment.

We’re advising clients to build flexibility into agreements, revisit tax allocation language, and monitor developments to preserve deal economics.

Are you seeing shifts in who’s seeking funding and how their expectations are evolving?

Absolutely. Litigation funding is no longer niche. Fortune 500 companies and smaller businesses alike are seeking funding, often because litigation costs weigh heavily on their income statements. Unlocking capital tied up in long-running cases enables companies to redirect resources toward growth, such as hiring, R&D, and strategic initiatives, or to retain preferred counsel.

Law firms have evolved as well. Firms that historically operated on a billable-hour model (think Am Law 200) are increasingly open to contingency fee arrangements, often pairing them with third-party funding to manage risk and liquidity. We’re also seeing firms across the spectrum, from personal injury powerhouses and mass tort firms to elite litigation boutiques, monetize contingency receivables to accelerate growth, improve liquidity, or shift risk. What was once a strategy for cash-constrained firms has become a strategic capital tool for practices with high-value, contingent assets.

Consumers of litigation funding are recognizing that underwriting litigation is not their core competency and that money spent on litigation could be better deployed.

Expectations today revolve around speed, transparency, and deal customization. Funders with boilerplate offerings or long diligence cycles are struggling to keep up.

Given all that evolution, how is the role of deal counsel changing in this ecosystem?

The role of deal counsel has become highly strategic. We’re not just papering deals; we’re shaping term sheets, negotiating funding mechanics, and managing multi-party dynamics to get complex transactions across the finish line.

Funders and funded parties (whether law firms, plaintiffs, or otherwise) rely on us to identify friction points early, design around them, and close with minimal disruption. That’s the role of modern deal counsel in litigation finance.

But some fundamentals remain unchanged…

Exactly. Litigation counsel must remain independent, and the fairness of the legal process must be preserved. Our role as deal counsel is to support that framework, not interfere with it.

The strongest litigation finance deals are built on clearly defined roles, aligned incentives, and mutual respect for legal boundaries. When those fundamentals are in place, both the transaction and the underlying litigation stand on solid ground.

When my co-founder and I were litigators, we kept running into a “chicken-and-egg” dilemma: it takes capital to investigate, plead, and evidence a claim, yet most funders will not release significant capital until that work is already complete. Ignitis was created to bridge that gap. We deploy funds at the riskiest, earliest stage, when key questions still need answers, so our clients can generate the data points future funders require. That litigation experience is baked into everything we do, from how we assess cases to the speed at which we commit capital.

Can you describe some of the unique challenges your clients face and how Ignitis addresses them?

Every client faces a need for initial funding to unlock further case development such as expert analysis, merits opinions, damage opinions, and/or legal fees. Without that seed capital, even highly meritorious claims can stall. Ignitis supplies that early-stage capital quickly, allowing our clients to build out the factual and legal record, refine damages models, and position the matter for larger financing and filing.

How does Ignitis differentiate itself from other companies in the legal funding space?

• Early-Stage Focus. Early-stage, high-risk funding is our core product. Our comfort in doing this is the result of years of litigating on risk through contingency fee structures such that we are very comfortable with case selection and early risk.
• Decision Speed. Once we receive a complete information set, we aim to have an investment decision within days, giving our clients a genuine first-mover advantage.
• End-to-End Support. Because we have lived the due-diligence grind ourselves, we help package the matter for later-stage funders and insurers, freeing lawyers to concentrate on litigation rather than capital raising.

What recent developments or innovations at Ignitis are you most excited about?

Specializing exclusively in early-stage funding has allowed us to build proprietary triage and diligence workflows. Coupled with a lean decision-making structure we can deploy capital faster than traditional funders can schedule an investment-committee meeting. The result is a nimble platform that adapts as the market evolves.

How do you see the future of legal funding evolving, and what role do you envision your company playing in that future?

The asset class is attracting an increasingly diverse pool of capital — family offices, credit funds, and insurers, not just dedicated litigation funders. By providing rigorous case development and structured risk-transfer tools (including tailored portfolio and insurance solutions), Ignitis converts what was once viewed as binary litigation risk into an investable, partially self-insured product. Our goal is to expand access to justice worldwide by matching meritorious claims with capital that understands and is comfortable with the underlying risk.