In this episode, we sit down with Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation North America. Richard discusses how Moneypenny can save costs and increase operational efficiency for law firms and litigation funders through enhanced client communication services.
In this episode, we sit down with Cormac Leech, CEO of UK litigation funding platform, AxiaFunder. AxiaFunder allows individuals to invest in a high volume of small claims in the UK. We discussed AxiaFunder's market strategy, housing disrepair and diesel emissions claims, the challenges of funding a large volume of small claims types, and how AxiaFunder is utilizing AI and automation in its processes.
" />In this episode, we sat down with Louisa Klouda, CEO of Fenchurch Legal. Fenchurch is a specialist litigation funder providing finance to UK law firms to fund small ticket claims which are insured by an ATE insurance policy.
" />Our guest today is Sam Dolce, an Attorney and Vice President at Milestone. Milestone is a settlement administrator that offers efficiency and transparency to law firms and their clients post-settlement. Sam discusses the settlement process in mass torts, what challenges law firms and funders face during settlement, how Milestone can help alleviate those headaches, and what trends are on the horizon in the mass torts sector.
I am often referred to as “The Mass Tort Whisperer®” which really means we are usually very early in hearing about early new torts, late-stage torts that may be settling soon, etc.This information can be traded on so it’s quite valuable as we can help our clients use much of this information to make capital deployment decisions. The value for mid stage is a combination of value we bring for early and some of the value propositions mentioned in late stage. Knowing the handling firms that have been really serious about the tort and in leadership is key. The modeling financials can get more detailed with projections and less guessing since the tort will have moved from early to mid-stage. Following the tort activity in the litigation is key to understanding the direction that leadership sees for each tort and how bullish they are is key to an investor deciding to deploy capital for the tort. Our value for the mid stage is key being the tort is mid-way thru the life cycle and so many variables need to be considered prior to investing. The value of late stage is knowing which law firms would be considered the best handling firm to work with that can maximize settlement values or which firms are in settlement negotiations and can still take more cases would be two good examples. Also, having the data to model out what fallout/attrition looks like with late-stage cases is key since it may be higher than the earlier stages. The late-stage torts are a great opportunity but financial modeling and picking the right partners are key. Also, the marketing/origination of cases needs to be handled very precise and almost scientific like to make sure cases can still be acquired at costs that make sense taking the criteria in mind of the possible handling firms. There’s quite a bit of value we bring to these late-stage campaigns for our clients. At which stage of the case life are you currently finding the most attention from litigation funders? Where is there the most room for growth? The most attention goes to late-stage torts due to the projected shorter time to settlement vs. the early and mid-stage torts. If there’s more capital to spend annually, we see more diversification with the heavy weight still on late stage and smaller percentages of total capital going to the mid and early stages. We educate our clients on costs and risk for each stage tort. The late stage is typically higher, but risk of a settlement is much lower since it’s a mature tort, there’s more history and analysis that can be done on how the tort has progressed. The early torts are just emerging or will have recently passed Daubert so being early the costs are much lower and risk a bit higher since the litigation will be early in starting. Mid stage gives you a bit of all with costs not as high as late stage and risks a bit lower than the torts just starting out.
There are a limited number of injured victims in each tort, and we always need to be careful not to put more capital than we project we can spend, or costs of a case will drive higher pretty fast.With larger capital clients we are moving into other torts whether late stage as well or mid and early stages to help diversify. One interesting note as we diversify clients is deploying capital into some torts that are closer to personal injury cases vs. traditional mass torts like Asbestos and Sex Abuse as two examples. The time to settlement in these are closer to what we see in auto accidents being around 18 months, these are interesting torts to diversity capital and see shorter settlement times that some of the longer mass torts. The answer to the question about where room for growth is would be from the early-stage torts in being that there typically has not been a large amount of marketing yet to acquire cases so the possible total cases available would be quite high and with costs being fairly low. This is usually where we can deploy the most capital vs. the other stages. When it comes to modeling out the expected costs, timeline and return, you look at a variety of factors here. Can you explain what those factors are, and how do you weight each of those from case to case (is there a standard algorithm, or is the weighting bespoke to each case?) When modeling out the expected costs, timeline, attrition and projected return, we consider a variety of factors to ensure a comprehensive analysis. These factors can include:
We are happy to collaborate with your existing law firm relationships, but we really try to stick to the requirements we think make for a great handling firm and we would want to see if the law firm you may want to use meets the standard.The key things we look for are the following:
Unlike commercial patent owners, universities are not unitary organizations with a hierarchically-defined command and control structure. Universities can comprise several constituencies and legal entities, not all of whom have completely aligned intellectual property interests. Successfully representing a university requires being actively aware of each facet of its make-up and serving as a facilitator between them. For example, a university’s president may not view patent litigation positively, whereas its research sponsor considers patent enforcement to be an essential right that must be exercised under its exclusive license. Successful counsel and funders of university patent owners patiently seek out all interested parties within the university umbrella to ensure a litigation strategy and funding arrangement satisfies as many interests as practicable.
How do you address the potential conflicts of interest that might arise when public institutions enter into litigation funding agreements? Are concerns here legitimate, or are they overblown?
Politics may require consideration when public universities are involved. For example, is approval from the state attorney general required? Can the litigation funder represent that no foreign investors are involved? Should the university be a party to a litigation funding agreement? If so, which part of the university should engage with a litigation funder? If not, how can the university’s public interests be protected in a law firm-facing litigation funding arrangement? These considerations are extraordinarily important and cannot be glossed over.
When it comes to IP enforcement, how do you balance the need for aggressive litigation with the broader mission and reputational considerations of public institutions?Protecting institutional reputation is always the primary concern. A university may have spent decades or even centuries building its academic reputation. But reputations are fragile. A university will not risk ruining its reputation by its trial lawyer’s misconduct or funder’s lack of transparency. Everyone working with a university, including its counsel and funders, are de facto arms of the university and must be willing to uphold its high standards of ethics.
What are the trends to watch out for when considering legal funding for public institutions? How will this sector of the market evolve over the coming years?I predict that more funders will become interested in acquiring university-originated patents rather than just funding litigation. This affords a university much-needed up-front monetization while simultaneously providing the funder more control over strategic decision-making. I also predict that a commercially-run version of the University Technology Licensing Program (UTLP) could be very successful in the funded patent litigation marketplace.
As an attorney and VP at Milestone, Sam Dolce provides in-depth, comprehensive consultations with attorneys about how to save their firms time and money. Sam is a regular speaker and presenter at academic and legal conferences across the country regarding post-settlement innovation.
Milestone is a high-touch settlement solutions firm on mission to bring efficiency, transparency, and education to law firms and their clients after settlement. An innovator in mass tort and multi-party litigation, Milestone has developed Pathway®, the leading tech solution in the post-settlement space. Milestone was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in Buffalo, New York.
Below is our LFJ Conversation with Sam Dolce:
Milestone has launched an innovative mass tort settlement administration platform. What are the main value-adds here? Why should users consider this product?
Milestone’s Pathway® platform shortens case duration in mass tort litigation by digitizing the post-settlement process.
In addition to providing a more streamlined, accommodating, and informed post-settlement process for claimants, Pathway also serves law firms’ bottom lines. The platform saves law firms time and money, relieving them of the administrative burden of managing post-settlement. Pathway is also the first solution to provide real-time visibility into the settlement process for both claimants and attorneys, fostering transparency and trust and ensuring all parties know where money is at any given time.
By engaging and implementing Pathway, law firms are able to allocate resources more effectively and focus on core competencies. The automation of time-consuming tasks frees attorneys and support staff up to handle more complex legal matters and provide higher-quality client service.
How would litigation funders benefit specifically from Milestone's new platform?
Pathway’s competencies serve the interests of litigation funders in impactful ways.
By speeding up the post-settlement process, Pathway can help litigation funders realize faster returns on their investments. Reduced operational costs through automation and efficiency also lead to higher profit margins. A streamlined post-settlement process can reduce the risk of errors, disputes, and delays.
Pathway’s backend, real-time dashboard is also a game changer for litigation funders, giving them the ability to check in on cash flow or case performance at any given time.
Additionally, law firms that use Pathway can position themselves as more efficient and technologically advanced, attracting top talent and more clients.
What are some of the current trends in settlement administration in the mass tort space, and how is Milestone addressing those?
As corporate negligence shows no signs of slowing down any time soon, we are seeing the number and scale of mass tort cases trending steadily upward across the board. Milestone’s Pathway virtually eliminates any strain that this increased workload could place on law firms by processing tens of thousands of claims in record time and getting full dockets paid in a matter of weeks or months.
Another trend is that with these expanding dockets, attorneys have less and less time to provide individualized attention and guidance to each claimant. With this, it is becoming more common for claimants to lose out on the opportunity to financially plan with their settlement monies, as many don’t become aware of this possibility until it is too late. Pathway ensures that education around settlement planning is baked into the administration process, meaning that claimants get an elevated, customized post-settlement experience, ultimately increasing overall client satisfaction for the law firm.
What have users been saying about the product? Can you share any feedback?
Numerous law firms have praised Pathway for its efficiency, accuracy, and ease of use. Testimonials from both law firms and claimants highlight the positive impact of the platform on the post-settlement experience.
“All directions and steps were easy to follow regarding a payment, and the support team can be easily reached when having issues or need to get into contact with somebody.” - Claimant who went through Pathway
“What an incredible company! These folks CARE about their clients...I'm not an attorney, but if I were I would certainly be going through Milestone for any mass tort settlement planning!! On the side of customer service—WOW!! I am thoroughly impressed with the stark professionalism and friendliness I experienced throughout the process!” - Claimant who went through Pathway
“The work that Milestone does is absolutely vital to the success of multi-district litigation. Getting to a number in litigation is very hard, but that’s only part of the battle. How you then get that distributed to clients is the other. How do you communicate with 200,000 people and make sure they have access to the money and understand what’s going on with their cases?” - Attorney client
“Faster than AI, they're totally raising the bar.” - Claimant who went through Pathway
Litigation funding and mass torts are growing more interconnected. How do you see these two sectors evolving over the coming years?
Litigation funding and mass torts are both prominent forces in shaping the legal landscape today and into the future, so it makes sense that they’ll grow more interconnected as the years go on.
As more mass torts arise, more substantial financial backing will be needed for firms to be able to take on cases of such large scale. Litigation funders will also likely play a more active role in early case evaluation, helping law firms identify which mass torts to take on. The influx of litigation funding will likely also lead to more innovative fee arrangements between mass tort law firms and their clients. And with litigation funders providing financial backing, we’re likely to see more mass tort firms pursuing litigation rather than being swayed to settle early.
There are countless challenges that come along with this intertwined trajectory, but along with those come many opportunities. Milestone is dedicated to ensuring that ethical considerations and the good of the plaintiff remain at the heart of mass tort operations while simultaneously increasing revenue for litigation funders and law firms.
Securities litigation in Sweden can be done in various ways, through class/group actions, derivative actions, or regulatory enforcement actions (by authorities). Case law in the sphere of private enforcement is historically scarce but will now hopefully start to emerge. A historic reason is probably that Sweden as a civil law country lacks statutory rules regulating civil liability in relation to improper securities activities.
In the Ericsson case, 37 institutions are claiming roughly $200 million from the issuer in the district court of Solna, Sweden. The claimants state they have suffered investment losses since Ericsson withheld information about potential bribes paid to the terrorist organisation ISIS in Iraq, that caused the share price to fall. The claimants are all large (non-Swedish) institutional investors, and the case is funded by a third-party funder (not Deminor). The case will be tried in the first instance court in 2025.
The legal community expects to see an increase in litigation related to securities in the coming years, to paint a picture in 2021 there where was one (1) initial public offering every second day (157 in total). In 2022-23 there were only a handful of initial public offerings each year. Sweden has a disproportionate number of listed companies compared to other EU countries and it is considered a national sport to invest in the stock market. A majority of listed shares are held by local and foreign sovereign wealth funds, they seldom engage in litigation locally but often participate in international cases in the US and elsewhere. The economy is currently in a recession which has historically always led to an increase in the number of disputes.
Deminor is the only international funder with a local presence that focuses on securities litigation. On paper there are plenty of opportunities in Scandinavia, but in practical terms cases are often too “small” meaning the quantum of the potential loss the investor has suffered is not sufficient to initiate the litigation. Or which is more often the situation, the investors that do hold a significant part of the shares (the loss) are not willing to engage in litigation for various reasons. The claimants that are willing to lead the way in terms of creating the much-needed case law is the types we see in the Ericsson case, foreign institutional investors.
We could summarize the situation with a phrase coined by the advertising industry for when there was a minute of silence before the next add was supposed to run - watch this space!
Australia has an adversarial legal system in which the Courts apply active case management discipline throughout the life cycle of each proceeding. This generally provides that civil and commercial cases have a timely and predictable trajectory to mediation and hearing. In addition, most jurisdictions operate in accordance with the ‘loser pays’ principle, meaning that the litigant who loses the case must pay the opponent’s legal costs; this provides a strong incentive for both sides to settle prior to hearing. Finally, the legality of third-party funding is well-established in Australia, and we have a mature class action jurisdiction with a strong thread of precedent legitimating funders’ entitlement to directly share in claim proceeds, subject to the Court’s satisfaction with the fairness of such arrangements on a case-by-case basis.
Some of the major trends in the industry involve an increased regulatory push, the inclusion of insurance products, funders getting more involved in arbitration and mass torts, etc. Which major global trends would you say are most salient in the Australian market, and which are less applicable?
Regulation of litigation funding in Australia peaked in 2020-21, under the previous federal parliament. Reforms included extending the consumer protections available to investors in managed investment schemes (MIS) to participants in class actions, and a proposed minimum return to class members. Both reforms were in search of an actual systemic problem and proved redundant in practice, and were ultimately revoked by the successive parliament upon taking office in early 2022.
You have a background in finance, having been the CEO and founder of an investment bank. From an underwriting perspective, what are the most challenging aspects of funding a claim? What are the red flags that you watch out for, which might indicate that a meritorious claim isn't worth financing?CASL’s due diligence process for potential investments doesn’t focus solely on the legal arguments of a claim, it also involves an assessment of whether the litigant and their legal team will be sufficiently aligned with CASL’s commercial objective to achieve a feasible resolution as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
With that in mind, claims that have sound legal merits may still represent an uncommercial proposition to CASL for three main reasons. Firstly, the amount of funding required for the legal costs estimated to run the matter may be disproportionate to the likely size of the claim; often this will be a factor in cases that involve many defendants. Secondly, there may be particular characteristics of a case that entail a substantial potential for delay in achieving resolution; this could include novel legal issues which increase appeal risk, or litigants prone to intractable rather than commercial conduct. Finally, we may be unable to reach an acceptable level of confidence in the defendant’s capacity to meet a settlement or judgment sum.
Your website indicates that you finance class actions, arbitration, insolvency and commercial claims. How do you think about these varying legal sectors in terms of capital allocation? Are some riskier than others (broadly speaking), and therefore you won't commit more than a certain percentage of your portfolio to that legal sector? Or do you rate each claim on its own merits, regardless of legal sector?Generally speaking, CASL’s approach is to assess each claim on its own merits, as we don’t perceive certain types of claims as inherently riskier than others, and don’t target a particular composition of the portfolio by claim type.
Whilst class actions typically have a longer life cycle than other types of case, that of itself does not increase their relative risk profile; in any class action, as indeed any type of case, the level of risk will primarily arise from the underlying legal and factual questions the Court is being asked to determine. For that reason, we gauge concentration risk in the portfolio by reference to the existence of any overlap in the legal questions being litigated across existing investments, rather than by type of case.
What do you view as the key drivers of industry growth over the coming years?The litigation finance industry is a reflection of the evolution of the civil justice system rather than a driver itself. The civil justice system is adapting and responding to a growth in disputes arising in areas such as privacy and data breaches, consumer claims including product liability, and climate including greenwashing. These types of claims are prominent or growing in other jurisdictions throughout the world, and Australia will benefit from these experiences or will lead the development of such claims given the strength of the legal system and its capacity to adapt.
As a result of the global relevance of certain claims, the law firms and funders are forging closer relationships across borders to ensure the efficient prosecution of claims.
Inevitably the law plays ‘catch-up’, but it is vitally important that law firms and funders continue to push legislators to design effective laws to require accountability, responsibility and high levels of governance within the social fabric to benefit society as a whole.
I am often referred to as “The Mass Tort Whisperer®” which really means we are usually very early in hearing about early new torts, late-stage torts that may be settling soon, etc.This information can be traded on so it’s quite valuable as we can help our clients use much of this information to make capital deployment decisions. The value for mid stage is a combination of value we bring for early and some of the value propositions mentioned in late stage. Knowing the handling firms that have been really serious about the tort and in leadership is key. The modeling financials can get more detailed with projections and less guessing since the tort will have moved from early to mid-stage. Following the tort activity in the litigation is key to understanding the direction that leadership sees for each tort and how bullish they are is key to an investor deciding to deploy capital for the tort. Our value for the mid stage is key being the tort is mid-way thru the life cycle and so many variables need to be considered prior to investing. The value of late stage is knowing which law firms would be considered the best handling firm to work with that can maximize settlement values or which firms are in settlement negotiations and can still take more cases would be two good examples. Also, having the data to model out what fallout/attrition looks like with late-stage cases is key since it may be higher than the earlier stages. The late-stage torts are a great opportunity but financial modeling and picking the right partners are key. Also, the marketing/origination of cases needs to be handled very precise and almost scientific like to make sure cases can still be acquired at costs that make sense taking the criteria in mind of the possible handling firms. There’s quite a bit of value we bring to these late-stage campaigns for our clients. At which stage of the case life are you currently finding the most attention from litigation funders? Where is there the most room for growth? The most attention goes to late-stage torts due to the projected shorter time to settlement vs. the early and mid-stage torts. If there’s more capital to spend annually, we see more diversification with the heavy weight still on late stage and smaller percentages of total capital going to the mid and early stages. We educate our clients on costs and risk for each stage tort. The late stage is typically higher, but risk of a settlement is much lower since it’s a mature tort, there’s more history and analysis that can be done on how the tort has progressed. The early torts are just emerging or will have recently passed Daubert so being early the costs are much lower and risk a bit higher since the litigation will be early in starting. Mid stage gives you a bit of all with costs not as high as late stage and risks a bit lower than the torts just starting out.
There are a limited number of injured victims in each tort, and we always need to be careful not to put more capital than we project we can spend, or costs of a case will drive higher pretty fast.With larger capital clients we are moving into other torts whether late stage as well or mid and early stages to help diversify. One interesting note as we diversify clients is deploying capital into some torts that are closer to personal injury cases vs. traditional mass torts like Asbestos and Sex Abuse as two examples. The time to settlement in these are closer to what we see in auto accidents being around 18 months, these are interesting torts to diversity capital and see shorter settlement times that some of the longer mass torts. The answer to the question about where room for growth is would be from the early-stage torts in being that there typically has not been a large amount of marketing yet to acquire cases so the possible total cases available would be quite high and with costs being fairly low. This is usually where we can deploy the most capital vs. the other stages. When it comes to modeling out the expected costs, timeline and return, you look at a variety of factors here. Can you explain what those factors are, and how do you weight each of those from case to case (is there a standard algorithm, or is the weighting bespoke to each case?) When modeling out the expected costs, timeline, attrition and projected return, we consider a variety of factors to ensure a comprehensive analysis. These factors can include:
We are happy to collaborate with your existing law firm relationships, but we really try to stick to the requirements we think make for a great handling firm and we would want to see if the law firm you may want to use meets the standard.The key things we look for are the following:
Unlike commercial patent owners, universities are not unitary organizations with a hierarchically-defined command and control structure. Universities can comprise several constituencies and legal entities, not all of whom have completely aligned intellectual property interests. Successfully representing a university requires being actively aware of each facet of its make-up and serving as a facilitator between them. For example, a university’s president may not view patent litigation positively, whereas its research sponsor considers patent enforcement to be an essential right that must be exercised under its exclusive license. Successful counsel and funders of university patent owners patiently seek out all interested parties within the university umbrella to ensure a litigation strategy and funding arrangement satisfies as many interests as practicable.
How do you address the potential conflicts of interest that might arise when public institutions enter into litigation funding agreements? Are concerns here legitimate, or are they overblown?
Politics may require consideration when public universities are involved. For example, is approval from the state attorney general required? Can the litigation funder represent that no foreign investors are involved? Should the university be a party to a litigation funding agreement? If so, which part of the university should engage with a litigation funder? If not, how can the university’s public interests be protected in a law firm-facing litigation funding arrangement? These considerations are extraordinarily important and cannot be glossed over.
When it comes to IP enforcement, how do you balance the need for aggressive litigation with the broader mission and reputational considerations of public institutions?Protecting institutional reputation is always the primary concern. A university may have spent decades or even centuries building its academic reputation. But reputations are fragile. A university will not risk ruining its reputation by its trial lawyer’s misconduct or funder’s lack of transparency. Everyone working with a university, including its counsel and funders, are de facto arms of the university and must be willing to uphold its high standards of ethics.
What are the trends to watch out for when considering legal funding for public institutions? How will this sector of the market evolve over the coming years?I predict that more funders will become interested in acquiring university-originated patents rather than just funding litigation. This affords a university much-needed up-front monetization while simultaneously providing the funder more control over strategic decision-making. I also predict that a commercially-run version of the University Technology Licensing Program (UTLP) could be very successful in the funded patent litigation marketplace.
As an attorney and VP at Milestone, Sam Dolce provides in-depth, comprehensive consultations with attorneys about how to save their firms time and money. Sam is a regular speaker and presenter at academic and legal conferences across the country regarding post-settlement innovation.
Milestone is a high-touch settlement solutions firm on mission to bring efficiency, transparency, and education to law firms and their clients after settlement. An innovator in mass tort and multi-party litigation, Milestone has developed Pathway®, the leading tech solution in the post-settlement space. Milestone was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in Buffalo, New York.
Below is our LFJ Conversation with Sam Dolce:
Milestone has launched an innovative mass tort settlement administration platform. What are the main value-adds here? Why should users consider this product?
Milestone’s Pathway® platform shortens case duration in mass tort litigation by digitizing the post-settlement process.
In addition to providing a more streamlined, accommodating, and informed post-settlement process for claimants, Pathway also serves law firms’ bottom lines. The platform saves law firms time and money, relieving them of the administrative burden of managing post-settlement. Pathway is also the first solution to provide real-time visibility into the settlement process for both claimants and attorneys, fostering transparency and trust and ensuring all parties know where money is at any given time.
By engaging and implementing Pathway, law firms are able to allocate resources more effectively and focus on core competencies. The automation of time-consuming tasks frees attorneys and support staff up to handle more complex legal matters and provide higher-quality client service.
How would litigation funders benefit specifically from Milestone's new platform?
Pathway’s competencies serve the interests of litigation funders in impactful ways.
By speeding up the post-settlement process, Pathway can help litigation funders realize faster returns on their investments. Reduced operational costs through automation and efficiency also lead to higher profit margins. A streamlined post-settlement process can reduce the risk of errors, disputes, and delays.
Pathway’s backend, real-time dashboard is also a game changer for litigation funders, giving them the ability to check in on cash flow or case performance at any given time.
Additionally, law firms that use Pathway can position themselves as more efficient and technologically advanced, attracting top talent and more clients.
What are some of the current trends in settlement administration in the mass tort space, and how is Milestone addressing those?
As corporate negligence shows no signs of slowing down any time soon, we are seeing the number and scale of mass tort cases trending steadily upward across the board. Milestone’s Pathway virtually eliminates any strain that this increased workload could place on law firms by processing tens of thousands of claims in record time and getting full dockets paid in a matter of weeks or months.
Another trend is that with these expanding dockets, attorneys have less and less time to provide individualized attention and guidance to each claimant. With this, it is becoming more common for claimants to lose out on the opportunity to financially plan with their settlement monies, as many don’t become aware of this possibility until it is too late. Pathway ensures that education around settlement planning is baked into the administration process, meaning that claimants get an elevated, customized post-settlement experience, ultimately increasing overall client satisfaction for the law firm.
What have users been saying about the product? Can you share any feedback?
Numerous law firms have praised Pathway for its efficiency, accuracy, and ease of use. Testimonials from both law firms and claimants highlight the positive impact of the platform on the post-settlement experience.
“All directions and steps were easy to follow regarding a payment, and the support team can be easily reached when having issues or need to get into contact with somebody.” - Claimant who went through Pathway
“What an incredible company! These folks CARE about their clients...I'm not an attorney, but if I were I would certainly be going through Milestone for any mass tort settlement planning!! On the side of customer service—WOW!! I am thoroughly impressed with the stark professionalism and friendliness I experienced throughout the process!” - Claimant who went through Pathway
“The work that Milestone does is absolutely vital to the success of multi-district litigation. Getting to a number in litigation is very hard, but that’s only part of the battle. How you then get that distributed to clients is the other. How do you communicate with 200,000 people and make sure they have access to the money and understand what’s going on with their cases?” - Attorney client
“Faster than AI, they're totally raising the bar.” - Claimant who went through Pathway
Litigation funding and mass torts are growing more interconnected. How do you see these two sectors evolving over the coming years?
Litigation funding and mass torts are both prominent forces in shaping the legal landscape today and into the future, so it makes sense that they’ll grow more interconnected as the years go on.
As more mass torts arise, more substantial financial backing will be needed for firms to be able to take on cases of such large scale. Litigation funders will also likely play a more active role in early case evaluation, helping law firms identify which mass torts to take on. The influx of litigation funding will likely also lead to more innovative fee arrangements between mass tort law firms and their clients. And with litigation funders providing financial backing, we’re likely to see more mass tort firms pursuing litigation rather than being swayed to settle early.
There are countless challenges that come along with this intertwined trajectory, but along with those come many opportunities. Milestone is dedicated to ensuring that ethical considerations and the good of the plaintiff remain at the heart of mass tort operations while simultaneously increasing revenue for litigation funders and law firms.
In this episode, we sit down with Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation North America. Richard discusses how Moneypenny can save costs and increase operational efficiency for law firms and litigation funders through enhanced client communication services.
In this episode, we sit down with Cormac Leech, CEO of UK litigation funding platform, AxiaFunder. AxiaFunder allows individuals to invest in a high volume of small claims in the UK. We discussed AxiaFunder's market strategy, housing disrepair and diesel emissions claims, the challenges of funding a large volume of small claims types, and how AxiaFunder is utilizing AI and automation in its processes.
" />In this episode, we sat down with Louisa Klouda, CEO of Fenchurch Legal. Fenchurch is a specialist litigation funder providing finance to UK law firms to fund small ticket claims which are insured by an ATE insurance policy.
Securities litigation in Sweden can be done in various ways, through class/group actions, derivative actions, or regulatory enforcement actions (by authorities). Case law in the sphere of private enforcement is historically scarce but will now hopefully start to emerge. A historic reason is probably that Sweden as a civil law country lacks statutory rules regulating civil liability in relation to improper securities activities.
In the Ericsson case, 37 institutions are claiming roughly $200 million from the issuer in the district court of Solna, Sweden. The claimants state they have suffered investment losses since Ericsson withheld information about potential bribes paid to the terrorist organisation ISIS in Iraq, that caused the share price to fall. The claimants are all large (non-Swedish) institutional investors, and the case is funded by a third-party funder (not Deminor). The case will be tried in the first instance court in 2025.
The legal community expects to see an increase in litigation related to securities in the coming years, to paint a picture in 2021 there where was one (1) initial public offering every second day (157 in total). In 2022-23 there were only a handful of initial public offerings each year. Sweden has a disproportionate number of listed companies compared to other EU countries and it is considered a national sport to invest in the stock market. A majority of listed shares are held by local and foreign sovereign wealth funds, they seldom engage in litigation locally but often participate in international cases in the US and elsewhere. The economy is currently in a recession which has historically always led to an increase in the number of disputes.
Deminor is the only international funder with a local presence that focuses on securities litigation. On paper there are plenty of opportunities in Scandinavia, but in practical terms cases are often too “small” meaning the quantum of the potential loss the investor has suffered is not sufficient to initiate the litigation. Or which is more often the situation, the investors that do hold a significant part of the shares (the loss) are not willing to engage in litigation for various reasons. The claimants that are willing to lead the way in terms of creating the much-needed case law is the types we see in the Ericsson case, foreign institutional investors.
We could summarize the situation with a phrase coined by the advertising industry for when there was a minute of silence before the next add was supposed to run - watch this space!
The following article was contributed by Anthony Johnson, CEO of the Johnson Firm and Stellium.
The ascent of AI in law firms has thrust the intricate web of complexities and legal issues surrounding their implementation into the spotlight. As law firms grapple with the delicate balance between innovation and ethical considerations, they are tasked with navigating the minefield of AI ethics, AI bias, and synthetic data. Nevertheless, within these formidable challenges, law firms are presented with a singular and unparalleled opportunity to shape the landscape of AI law, copyright ownership decisively, and AI human rights.
Law firms embarking on the integration of AI into their practices must commence with conducting comprehensive due diligence. This process entails a precise evaluation of the AI technology's origins, development process, and the integrity of the data utilized for training. Safeguarding that the AI systems adopted must be meticulously developed with legally sourced and unbiased data sets. This measure is the linchpin in averting potential ethical or legal repercussions. It is especially paramount to be acutely mindful of the perils posed by AI bias and AI hallucination, both of which have the potential to undermine the fairness and credibility of legal outcomes.
Guidelines must decisively address the responsible use of AI, encompassing critical issues related to AI ethics, AI law, and copyright ownership. Furthermore, defining the scope of AI's decision-making power within legal cases is essential to avert any over-reliance on automated processes. By setting these boundaries, law firms demonstrate compliance with existing legal standards and actively shape the development of new norms in the rapidly evolving realm of legal AI.
Implementing AI tech in law firms isn't just a technical challenge; it's also a cultural shift. Regular training and awareness programs must be conducted to ensure responsible and effective use. These programs should focus on legal tech training, providing lawyers and legal staff with a deep understanding of AI capabilities and limitations. Addressing ethical AI use and the implications of AI on human rights in daily legal tasks is also required. Empowering legal teams with knowledge and tools will enhance their technological competence and drive positive change.
The integration of AI within legal practices presents substantial risks concerning confidentiality and data privacy. Law firms entrusted with handling sensitive information must confront the stark reality that the deployment of AI technologies directly threatens client confidentiality if mishandled. AI systems' insatiable appetite for large datasets during training lays bare the potential for exposing personal client data to unauthorized access or breaches. Without question, unwaveringly robust data protection measures must be enacted to safeguard trust and uphold the legal standards of confidentiality.
The pivotal role of AI in content generation has ignited intricate debates surrounding intellectual property rights and copyright ownership. As AI systems craft documents and materials, determining rightful ownership—be it the AI, the developer, or the law firm—emerges as a fiercely contested matter. This not only presents legal hurdles but also engenders profound ethical deliberations concerning the attribution and commercialization of AI-generated content within the legal domain.
The critical risk looms large: the potential for AI to perpetuate or even exacerbate biases. AI systems, mere reflections of the data they are trained on, stand as monuments to the skewed training materials that breed discriminatory outcomes. This concern is especially poignant in legal practices, where the mandate for fair and impartial decisions reigns supreme. Addressing AI bias is not just important; it is imperative to prevent the unjust treatment of individuals based on flawed or biased AI assessments, thereby upholding the irrefutable principles of justice and equality in legal proceedings.
The most egregious risk lies in the potential violation of client confidentiality. Law firms that dare to integrate AI tools must guarantee that these systems are absolutely impervious to breaches that could compromise sensitive information. Without the most stringent security measures, AI dares to inadvertently leak client data, resulting in severe legal repercussions and the irrevocable loss of client trust. This scenario emphatically underscores the necessity for robust data protection protocols in all AI deployments.
The misuse of AI inevitably leads to intricate intellectual property disputes. As AI systems possess the capability to generate legal documents and other intellectual outputs, the question of copyright ownership—whether it pertains to the AI, the law firm, or the original data providers—becomes a source of contention. Mismanagement in this domain can precipitate costly litigation, thrusting law firms into the task of navigating a labyrinth of AI law and copyright ownership issues. It is important that firms assertively delineate ownership rights in their AI deployment strategies to circumvent these potential pitfalls preemptively.
The reckless application of AI in legal practices invites ethical breaches and professional misconduct. Unmonitored AI systems presume to make decisions, potentially flouting the ethical standards decreed by legal authorities. The specter of AI bias looms large, capable of distorting decision-making in an unjust and discriminatory manner. Law firms must enforce stringent guidelines and conduct routine audits of their AI tools to uphold ethical compliance, thereby averting any semblance of professional misconduct that could mar their esteemed reputation and credibility.
The legal industry has witnessed numerous triumphant AI integrations that have set the gold standard for technology adoption, unequivocally elevating efficiency and accuracy. Take, for example, a prominent U.S. law firm that fearlessly harnessed AI to automate document analysis for litigation cases, substantially reducing lawyers' document review time while magnifying the precision of findings. Not only did this optimization revolutionize the workflow, but it also empowered attorneys to concentrate on more strategic tasks, thereby enhancing client service and firm profitability. In another case, an international law firm adopted AI-driven predictive analytics to forecast litigation outcomes. This tool provided unprecedented precision in advising clients on the feasibility of pursuing or settling cases, strengthening client trust and firm reputation. These examples highlight the transformative potential of AI when integrated into legal frameworks.
Integrating AI within the legal sector is an urgent reality that law firms cannot ignore. While the ascent of AI presents complex challenges, it also offers an unparalleled opportunity to shape AI law, copyright ownership, and AI human rights. To successfully implement AI in legal practices, due diligence on AI technologies, training programs for lawyers, and establishing clear guidelines and ethical standards are crucial. However, risks and moral considerations must be carefully addressed, such as confidentiality and data privacy concerns, intellectual property and copyright issues, and bias and discrimination in AI outputs. Failure to do so can lead to violations of client confidentiality and costly intellectual property disputes. By navigating these risks and pitfalls, law firms can harness the transformative power of AI while upholding legal standards and ensuring a fair and just legal system.
As a former litigator who recently obtained his MBA, Andrew offers a unique perspective in his role of creating, developing, and maintaining business relationships with law firms and litigants as LF2 expands its commercial program.
Andrew is an Associate Director of Investments at LF2. In his role, Andrew works with the Underwriting and Investment team to both analyze and develop potential funding opportunities. Andrew received a Dean’s Merit Scholarship from Cardozo Law School and an MBA from Columbia Business School. Andrew practiced as a commercial litigator prior to entering the litigation finance industry.
Company Name and Description: Lex Ferenda Litigation Funding LLC. We specialize in funding single commercial cases starting at $1 million.
Company Website: www.lf-2.com
Year Founded: 2020
Headquarters: Rye, New York
Area of Focus: Business development and underwriting.
Member Quote: I’m grateful to be able to make an impact in such a dynamic industry, particularly as it continues to grow and enhance outcomes within and beyond the legal community.
Stuart Price is the Chief Executive Officer, Managing Director and co-founder of CASL. Mr Price worked in the United Kingdom, the Middle East and Australia during his 30+ year career in banking and investment banking, legal and litigation finance. Mr Price has held senior positions in litigation finance for over a decade with a career highlight being the resolution of a class action against the Queensland State Government for ‘Stolen Wages’ for $190m, on behalf of over 12,000 First Nations peoples.
Mr Price was instrumental in the establishment of The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (ALFA), where he was the inaugural CEO and Managing Director from 2018. Mr Price continues as a Director of ALFA.
Mr Price has a 1st Class Honours Degree in Applied Mathematics from the University of St. Andrews, is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales, a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia & New Zealand, a Fellow of the Governance Institute of Australia and a Fellow of FINSIA.
Company Name and Description: CASL was founded in 2020 by John Walker and Stuart Price with the objective of creating a level playing field and providing access to the legal system for claimants to prosecute meritorious claims.
CASL is a significant litigation funder in the Australian market, raising investment capital of $156m in 2022 that represents one of the largest dedicated pools of capital to this market.
Company Website: https://www.casl.com.au/
Year Founded: 2020
Headquarters: Sydney
Area of Focus: Litigation Finance
Member Quote: CASL has one of the most experienced litigation finance teams which when combined with substantial financial resources, enables it to be a leading provider of litigation finance with local decision making.
Sam Klatt is the Chief Investment Officer at 10 East, where he is responsible for sourcing and managing investment opportunities.
Mr. Klatt has +20 years of experience investing in public equities real estate, private credit, private equity, and venture capital. Prior to founding Portage Partners and then 10 East, Mr. Klatt was a vice president at M.D. Sass, a private investment manager that focused on traditional and alternative investment strategies.
Mr. Klatt received an M.S. in Real Estate Development from Columbia University in 2010 and earned a B.A. in Economics from Johns Hopkins University with a minor in Entrepreneurship and Management. Mr. Klatt is also a Chartered Financial Analyst.
Company Name and Description: 10 East, led by Michael Leffell, allows qualified individuals to invest alongside a seasoned team with a decade+ historical track record of strong performance in litigation finance, private credit, real estate, niche venture/private equity, and other one-off investments that aren’t typically available through traditional channels.
Benefits of 10 East membership include:
10 East is where founders, executives, and portfolio managers from industry-leading firms diversify their personal portfolios.
Company Website: 10east.co
Year Founded: 2011, as Portage Partners, rebranded as 10 East in 2022
Headquarters: New York
Area of Focus: Litigation finance, real estate, private credit, and niche venture/private equity. Emerging managers, independent sponsors, and one-off co-investments.
Member Quote: Our principals, partners and members have invested more than $100 million in litigation finance opportunities since inception—it’s a strategy where we often identify highly attractive risk/return asymmetry with the added benefit of being less correlated to the markets.
Participate as a guest in our exclusive thought leadership series. Share your insights with other senior leaders and contribute to the ongoing conversations that are shaping the future of global legal funding.
Contact UsJoin today to access all premium content and become part of the most influential community in the global legal funding space.
Become a Member
" />