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.

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.

You've spent decades in corporate finance and investment management before founding CAVEAT CAPITAL. What gaps in the dispute-finance market did you see from that vantage point, and how does your traditional finance background influence the way you underwrite and structure litigation-funding deals today?

Coming from a background in corporate finance and investment management, I saw a significant disconnect between the legal world’s approach to dispute resolution and the way capital markets assess risk and return. Many claims with strong legal merit were overlooked because they lacked financial packaging that investors could understand and trust.

When I founded Caveat Capital, I wanted to bridge that gap. My training and experience in structured finance, risk allocation, and asset modeling helps us treat legal claims as investable instruments. At Caveat Capital, we apply commercial due diligence standards, build funding memoranda that speak to capital providers in their language, and structure deals with clear risk-sharing, milestones, and contingencies. In essence, we bring investment discipline to a domain often driven purely by legal instinct.

CAVEAT CAPITAL is a litigation-funding consultancy in the Middle East. What regulatory or cultural hurdles have you encountered in bringing third-party funding to claimants and law firms across the GCC and wider MENA region, and where do you see the biggest growth opportunities over the next five years?

The regulatory landscape across the GCC and MENA region is still evolving when it comes to third-party funding. There’s a historical conservatism—both cultural and legal—around external financing of disputes, particularly in jurisdictions without codified frameworks. However, we’re seeing a shift, especially in arbitration-centric hubs like the DIFC, ADGM and DIAC, which have explicitly recognized third-party funding.

Culturally, there’s also a learning curve. Many claimants and law firms are unfamiliar with the mechanics of litigation finance, or associate it with loss of control. At Caveat Capital, our role often begins with education—demystifying the process and building trust on both sides.

As for growth, I see major opportunities in sovereign-commercial disputes, infrastructure claims, and enforcement actions across the GCC. As regional economies diversify and dispute volumes rise, the demand for smart, risk-sharing capital will grow exponentially.

Unlike many capital providers, CAVEAT CAPITAL sits between claimants and funders as an independent adviser—from drafting funding memoranda to negotiating term sheets. How do you balance neutrality with advocacy in that role, and what does a “successful” engagement look like for you and your clients?

Balancing neutrality with advocacy is the cornerstone of our model. We’re not aligned to one capital source or fund; our fiduciary duty is to the commercial success of the deal. That means we must present the claim with honesty and rigor—highlighting both strengths and weaknesses—to ensure funders can price risk accurately and sustainably.

A successful engagement is one where all stakeholders feel heard, the terms are balanced, and the funding leads to a fair and enforceable resolution. We’re proudest when we unlock funding for a claim that may have otherwise gone unfunded—not by overselling, but by translating complexity into commercial clarity.

Your firm was named “Global Litigation Funding & Advisory Firm of the Year” at the 5th Global Legal Association Conference in Dubai. What differentiators—whether in case selection, risk analytics, or stakeholder management—do you believe earned CAVEAT CAPITAL that recognition, and how will you build on it?

That recognition affirmed the value of our differentiated approach. We focus on bespoke structuring, funder-agnostic matchmaking, and deep regional knowledge—especially in jurisdictions where funding is emerging, not established. Our ability to navigate both the legal and financial sides of a deal—while bridging cultural and jurisdictional nuances—is what sets us apart.

We also apply a multi-metric risk model that considers not just legal merits but recovery pathways, enforceability, counterparty behavior, and geopolitical exposure. Going forward, we’re investing in technology, cross-border enforcement networks, and regional educational outreach to strengthen the funding ecosystem across emerging markets.

You’ve written about the disruptive impact of AI on litigation finance. Which emerging technologies do you think will most materially change case-assessment accuracy or deal economics, and how is CAVEAT CAPITAL preparing to integrate those tools into its workflow?

AI will change litigation finance in three major areas: predictive analytics, document review, and portfolio modeling. Tools that analyze prior judgments, jurisdictional patterns, and tribunal behaviors are already helping improve case scoring. When layered with machine learning, they offer faster, data-informed decisions that were previously reliant on human judgment alone.

At Caveat Capital, we’re partnering with LegalTech providers to build internal dashboards that combine predictive analytics with our human-led risk matrices. We're also exploring tools for ongoing case monitoring—tracking timelines, budget burn, and procedural triggers in real time. The future is hybrid: AI-augmented human judgment, not AI replacing it.

• Opportunities:
  • Moment‑of‑decision engagement: With advanced AI analytics, retailers can deliver real-time, tailored promotions and planogram adjustments at the point of sale.
  • Data‑driven merchandising: AI enhances restocking alerts, product layout insights, and foot‑traffic understanding—critical for smart inventory and offline marketing.
• Challenges:
  • Integration complexity: Corner-to-corner deployment requires retailers to adopt compliant camera systems, data pipelines, and staff workflows.
  • Privacy regulations: As solutions leverage image/data analytics, Alpha Modus and partners must navigate evolving consumer-privacy and data protection laws.
  • Retail adoption costs: Smaller retailers may delay implementing cutting-edge digital media due to capital and cultural constraints.

• Tailor digital ads by aligning promotions to demographics, store layout, and real-time shopper behavior .
• Optimize inventory by monitoring sales velocity and product interest, triggering restock or product-swapping alerts before stockouts occur . This data‑driven approach helps brands display relevant promotions, refine merchandising, and reduce lost sales from out‑of‑stock scenarios.

• Expanding the IP‑ecosystem: After VSBLTY, the Company plans more licensing deals and reseller relationships in smart‑retail, media, and inventory-tech domains.
• continued legal defense & monetization: Aggressive IP enforcement (e.g., Wakefern, Brookshire, Walgreens, Broadcom, Cisco) signals dedication to monetizing patents while feeding war-chest for future innovation and signing new partnerships as settlements are agreed.
• Operational scale‑up: With Tim Matthews now leading deployment strategy to accelerate rollout of CashX kiosks (June 5, 2025), the Company is building infrastructure to deliver in‑store tech at scale.
• Potential R&D pipeline: Their patent applications (e.g., personalized marketing, planogram management) and recent capital restructuring further empower future in-house product innovation.

We’ve seen increased interest in portfolio-based insurance solutions, particularly as the judgment preservation market has tightened.  What’s driving this shift, and how are clients adjusting their risk strategies in response?

When I first joined the insurance industry back in 2019, after about a decade as a trial and appellate lawyer at Boies Schiller, we were primarily insuring single-case defense-side risks with what we now call adverse judgment insurance or “AJI” policies.  Shortly after I started, the focus shifted to the plaintiff side, though most insurers still preferred insuring single cases with what came to be called judgment preservation insurance or “JPI” policies.  These policies protected plaintiffs who had already won at trial or on summary judgment against appellate risk, effectively guaranteeing a minimum recovery from their trial court judgments no matter what happened on appeal.

JPI was the driving force behind the explosive growth in the litigation and contingent risk insurance market for several years, in large part because these policies allowed plaintiffs to monetize judgments more cost-effectively than they could without insurance.  And as the market grew, so did the size of the judgments that were being insured and the amount of coverage limits that insurers were putting up, both individually and collectively, on these policies.  It got to the point where policies providing over $100 million in coverage for multi-hundred-million-dollar judgments became commonplace, and several policies were written that provided more than $500 million in coverage on billion-dollar-plus judgments.  Individual insurers were also sometimes betting tens of millions of dollars on the outcome of a single case as part of some of these JPI larger policies.

Unfortunately, while more modestly sized JPI policies on smaller judgments have generally performed as expected, with insurers not having to pay many claims, some of these larger, more high-profile JPI policies have run into significant challenges on appeal, on remand, and in places like the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  And the nature of this insurance is such that one big loss on a multi-hundred-million-dollar policy can more than wipe out the premium gains for insurers on several smaller policies.

The JPI losses that insurers have already incurred, and those they look likely to incur in the near term, have understandably caused many of them to reassess their approach to litigation and contingent risk insurance more broadly.  For some insurers, that has meant pulling back from the space or taking a “back to basics” approach and returning to a focus on defense-side risk.  But for many insurers, it has meant mirroring the pivot that much of the litigation finance industry made several years ago away from single cases – where financial outcomes can hinge entirely on one jury, one trial court judge, or one panel of appellate court judges – and toward a portfolio-focused approach that better spreads risk across multiple diverse cases or litigation-related investments, loans, or other assets.  In fact, the insurers who have come into the market following the JPI boom, and who therefore have no exposure to any of the large JPI policies of recent years, are generally focused, at least for the time being, exclusively on providing this sort of portfolio-based coverage.

Our clients at WTW are embracing this new paradigm.  Where a client may previously have sought to insure a single large patent infringement judgment with a similarly large JPI policy, they might now seek a portfolio-based policy that guarantees a minimum recovery from the combination of that judgment, several other earlier-stage cases that are pending in different trial courts, and numerous other patents they may seek to enforce through litigation in the future.  We’re also working with litigation funders who may previously have sought to insure individual investments on a piecemeal basis once they reached the judgment stage to instead insure portfolios of diversified investments throughout all stages of the litigation lifecycle, including in some cases entire funds or designated sleeves of funds.  Patent and mass tort case aggregators are also increasingly looking to avail themselves of portfolio-based insurance solutions that can be tailored to the unique risk profiles of their businesses and used as a financial tool to spur growth and increase profitability.

Law firms are getting in on the action, as well.  We are seeing tremendous interest in “work-in-progress” or “WIP” wrappers that insure, on a cross-collateralized basis, a law firm’s anticipated contingency fee recovery across a portfolio of cases.  Many of the recent WIP insurance placements that we’ve worked on recently have involved patent infringement cases and IP litigation boutiques, but we are also seeing interest from mass tort, personal injury, and product liability law firms, as well as among AmLaw 200 firms that focus on many different categories of high-value, capital- and labor-intensive plaintiff-side commercial litigation.

Can you walk us through what a portfolio-based insurance wrapper actually looks like – both for a litigation funder and for a law firm? How do the structures differ, and what risks are typically covered?

The basic structure of a portfolio-based insurance wrapper is very straightforward.  Essentially, an insured purchases a policy with a specific amount of coverage limits that guarantees the insured will recover an amount equivalent to those coverage limits from the cases or litigation-related investments, loans, or other assets that comprise the portfolio that’s being insured.  If, at the end of the policy term – or if the policy doesn’t have a specific term, once the last of the covered cases or investments has ended – the insured’s recovery is less than the limits on the policy, the insurers will pay out a “loss” on the policy that effectively trues the insured up to policy limits.

Recovery against the policy limits is measured differently depending on who the insured is:  for litigants insuring pools of plaintiff-side litigation, insurers look to any amounts the litigant earns through damage awards and settlements on those cases; for litigation funders, hedge funds, or others insuring investments in litigation-related assets, insurers look to their returns on those investments; for lenders insuring loans to law firms or other participants in the plaintiff-side litigation ecosystem, insurers look to the amount of principal plus interest repaid on those loans; and for law firms insuring their work-in-process or “WIP”  on a group of cases, insurers look to the contingency fees that the law firm collects on those cases.

For a litigation funder, it’s as simple as identifying a set of investments, loans, or other assets to go into the portfolio, identifying the amount the funder has invested in whatever it is that collateralizes the portfolio, and then insuring a minimum recovery that is some significant percentage of the funder’s overall investment.  And as I mentioned earlier, these policies can insure an entire fund, a designated portion of a fund, a specific LP within a fund, or even a more bespoke portfolio comprised of select investments from within a given fund or from a cross-section of different funds.

As with portfolio policies for litigation funders, WIP policies can be placed on a programmatic basis across a firm’s entire contingency fee case book or on a more selective basis across certain specifically identified cases.  Here’s an example of how a WIP policy might work:  Imagine that a law firm was litigating ten cases on contingency, with an anticipated recovery of more than $100 million in contingency fees and expected WIP of $50 million across the portfolio of cases.  The firm could potentially purchase a WIP policy with a $40 million limit, equal to 80% of its expected WIP, which would provide coverage if, over what is typically a five- to seven-year policy term, the ten cases in the portfolio collectively earn the firm less than $40 million in total contingency fees.  If, at the end of the policy term, the firm had only recovered $20 million in total contingency fees, the policy would cover the $20 million shortfall against the $40 million in policy limits.

WIP policies are often used as a mechanism to attract litigation funding at a much lower cost of capital than otherwise would be available without insurance, including from sources of capital that don’t typically invest in litigation-related assets because of the high risk involved.  There are dozens of different capital sources beyond traditional litigation funders – including hedge funds, family offices, private equity firms, private credit lenders, and other alternative sources of capital – who are keenly interested in lending against WIP policies, as well as against other portfolio-based and single-case insurance policies.

WIP insurance can also be a very useful tool for lawyers within firms where the billable hour is king to get approval from executive or contingency fee committees, or from the broader partnership, to bring high-value contingency fee cases.  These policies provide the firm with a guaranteed minimum recovery from contingency fee litigation by the end of the policy’s term such that, if the cases don’t ultimately work out as planned, the financial result to the firm will be the same as if the lawyers on those cases had spent several years simply billing their time on non-contingency fee matters for clients who received a small discount on those lawyers’ hourly rates.

I should also note that, for any portfolio-based policy, as with some of the more traditional single-case policies like judgment preservation and adverse judgment insurance, premiums are generally in the form of one-time upfront payments.  But for portfolio policies more than single-case policies, there are also mechanisms like deferred and contingent or “D&C” premiums that insurers are increasingly willing to employ to bring down the upfront premium cost in exchange for a modest piece of the recovery waterfall if the cases or investments that comprise the insured portfolio are highly successful.

How are insurers underwriting these portfolio-based structures differently than single-case policies?  Are there specific underwriting thresholds, case mix requirements, or expected returns that make a portfolio “insurable”?

Most insurers define a “portfolio policy” as one that is insuring at least three to five cases, and the more the merrier.  These cases should be uncorrelated, such that they should not all rise and fall together, and the more diversity that can be introduced into the portfolio – with regard to identity of plaintiffs, identity of defendants, specific causes of action, subject matter of the litigation, etc. – the better, as well.

That being said, it is common for an insured portfolio to be comprised of cases from a single plaintiff or representing only a single subject matter area from a litigation funder, law firm, or group of lawyers within a law firm who specialize in that subject matter area – think patent infringement, antitrust, or mass tort litigation.  And of course, insurers are highly vigilant about adverse selection, and will not insure portfolios that they suspect to be comprised of a prospective insured’s cherrypicked worst or riskiest cases or investments.  The easiest way to mitigate this suspicion as a prospective insured is to insure a “complete set” – whether the entirety of a given fund from a litigation funder, a law firm’s entire contingency fee case book, a patentholder’s entire patent portfolio, or a litigant’s entire portfolio of plaintiff-side cases.

Underwriting one of these portfolios is a very different exercise than underwriting a JPI or AJI policy.  Rather than a single case with an extensive, well-developed record (including, as was often the case with JPI placements, the exact appellate record that would be put before an appellate court when they are asked to decide the case), insurers are often faced with a high number of cases and less detailed and voluminous information about each individual case.  Often, cases that are already underway will have a limited history of case filings and unfiled cases will have only a preliminary case description and damages evaluation.  Accordingly, while the number of cases increases substantially, having less information per case can result in the amount of underwriting time, and associated underwriting fees, being relatively similar to a JPI or AJI policy.

In terms of the actual underwriting process, it’s important to keep in mind that insurers do not need to put all their eggs in a single basket on portfolio polices like they do for a JPI or AJI policy.  Instead, they determine the likelihood of success for each case in the portfolio and then assign an expected return to that case.  Then, using a weighted average of all the cases, the insurer determines exactly how likely it is that the portfolio will collectively return an amount that exceeds the limits being purchased.  Insurers are also looking at other things, as well, like a law firm or litigation funder’s track record on similar cases or investments, the underwriting guidelines being used to select cases or investments, the bona fides of the key individuals involved, case budgets, and the judgment collection and enforcement risk presented by the relevant defendants.

It's also important to keep in mind that the structure of portfolio-based insurance policies makes it much less likely that a policy could suffer a full limit loss given the number of cases or investments that would need to go poorly in order for that to happen.  This is another key differentiator from JPI, where a single adverse appellate court decision or bad remand outcome can sometimes cause a full limit loss.

Lastly, as I noted earlier, insurers will often look to include a deferred and contingent or “D&C” premium in portfolio-based policies, which allow the insurer to participate in the upside of a portfolio of cases or litigation-related investments if the portfolio turns out to be highly successful.  Since a D&C premium only kicks in after the insured has recovered an amount in excess of coverage limits, underwriters of portfolio-based policies with a D&C component will also evaluate the probability that a portfolio brings in proceeds well in excess of limits, thus entitling them to that additional backend premium.

For litigation funders raising capital or structuring new vehicles, how critical is it to have an insurance solution baked in from day one? Are LPs demanding it, or is it still seen as an optional enhancement?

It ultimately depends on the type of investment capital that a funder is looking to attract.  Traditional litigation finance LPs, who seek to make high-risk, high-reward investments, often view insurance as antithetical to why they are investing in litigation finance in the first place, because the premium costs – whether upfront or D&C – cut into their returns.  These investors, and those funders who follow the same ethos, are generally not interested in wrapping their funds with any form of principal protection insurance coverage because they don’t want to forfeit any of their upside in order to do so.

On the other hand, a litigation funder who wraps a new fund with principal protection insurance can attract an entirely new class of investors that typically does not invest in litigation finance – investors who don’t need to understand litigation funding, or even litigation itself, in order to invest.  These LPs may invest in an insurance-wrapped fund precisely because their downside is de minimus or, depending on the limits of the relevant policy, essentially zero, but with a high potential upside – albeit, not as high as the upside would be without insurance.  This makes insurance-wrapped funds an ideal target for certain investment banking, pension fund, private equity, private credit, university endowment, sovereign wealth, family office, and other investors who will happily accept lower returns in exchange for lower – or, again, depending on the specific policy structure, potentially zero – risk.

So based on that, I see insurance coverage on a fund-wide basis as an optional enhancement that is very funder- and LP-dependent.  But it’s important to remember that we have a significant amount of flexibility in how we can structure these policies to best achieve our clients’ financial and risk management goals.  To give one example, there was a deal I worked on that involved a loan that a funder made to a law firm where the funds for the loan came from multiple different LPs, some of which needed principal protection coverage and some of which did not.  We were able to structure an insurance policy that only insured the portion of the loan attributable to the LPs who needed insurance coverage and effectively treated the portion of loan funds that came from the other LPs as co-insurance on the policy.  The significant co-insurance piece brought the cost of coverage down from where it would have been had we insured the entirety of the loan or a high percentage of the loan funds coming from all LPs.  So even in situations where there are distinct or even polar opposite LP needs on a single investment, loan, or other transaction, we can often create an insurance-based solution that works to deliver an optimal balance of risk and reward for everyone, enabling deals to get done that just would not have happened without insurance.

As the Founder and CEO of Fenchurch Legal, Louisa is responsible for overseeing all business operations, including fundraising, and ensuring the business’s overall success.

Louisa founded Fenchurch Legal in 2020 after an interest in the litigation finance market sparked an idea to apply a secured lending model to litigation finance. She discovered a market largely dominated by funders focusing on high-value, complex cases such as class actions, however, there was a lack of support for smaller claims. This insight led to the creation of Fenchurch Legal.

Before launching Fenchurch Legal, Louisa operated the broking and dealing desk for a corporate brokerage and finance firm in London. In this role, she gained extensive experience in mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, and investment product structuring. Her role involved daily interactions with both retail and professional investors, as well as corporate clients.

Fenchurch Legal operates differently from traditional litigation funders in several ways. Firstly, we focus on high-volume, low-value, process-driven consumer cases such as housing disrepair and financial mis-selling, where there is strong legal precedent supporting the claim type. Whereas larger litigation funders typically invest in high-stakes commercial disputes or class actions with multimillion-pound claims.

Secondly, the way we structure our lending is different. Traditional funders invest in cases on an outcome basis, taking equity-style positions – meaning they only receive a return if the case is successful, so they bear the risk of loss if the case is unsuccessful. In contrast, Fenchurch Legal operates as a direct lender, providing secured revolving credit facilities to law firms to draw down against costs and disbursements are repaid regardless of case outcomes. This structured lending model offers stability for both law firms and investors, ensuring predictable outcomes and controlled risk.

The key differentiation is that traditional funders invest in cases, whereas we provide loans.

That’s a great question and one we often get asked. The answer is simple: Fenchurch Legal is a lending business, not a law firm.

Operating within the private debt sector, we provide business loans specifically for consumer legal case costs and disbursements with minimal litigation. Our expertise lies in secured lending, structuring loans and managing financial risk – not litigating cases.

We partner with law firms by providing them with the financial resources they need to run cases efficiently, while we focus on risk management, due diligence, and loan security.

Before entering a specific case type, we work with legal advisors to obtain counsel’s opinion and review case law and outcomes to assess viability and risk.

As part of our underwriting process, we outsource legal expertise where needed to assess a law firm's legal procedures, compliance with SRA regulations, as well as case viability. Additionally, we continuously audit and monitor the firms we fund, ensuring they meet strict legal and regulatory requirements, both internally by our team and by outsourcing to specialist legal professionals.

Unlike traditional litigation funders who take an active role in case strategy, our role is purely financial. We lend, monitor, and safeguard investor capital, ensuring that the law firms we fund have the financial resources and oversight needed to handle legal claims successfully.

One of the biggest opportunities the small-ticket claim market brings is the ability to fund cases with a clear legal precedent against highly liquid defendants, such as government bodies, banks, or insurers. This ensures that we have no risk of non-payment of damages and costs.

Another advantage is the scalability of our model. By funding high volumes of claims, we can diversify risk across multiple law firms and case types. To date, we have funded over 15,000 small consumer claims. Out of the 6,145 loans that have been repaid, 92% were successful. For the 8% that were unsuccessful, ATE insurance provided the necessary coverage, reinforcing our robust risk management framework.

One of the challenges of funding smaller cases is the operational complexity of managing a high volume of claims efficiently. However, we have developed strong due diligence, auditing, and monitoring systems that allow us to track performance and mitigate potential risks. We also have our own loan management software which provides a complete overview of our loan book and how our law firms are performing.

How does Fenchurch handle security and risk management concerns? 

At Fenchurch Legal, security and risk management are at the core of our lending model. As a direct lender, we structure loans to safeguard investor capital while ensuring law firms can operate effectively. Our key risk management strategies include:

• Secured Lending Structure – Loans are backed by ATE Insurance, case proceeds, debentures and personal guarantees, ensuring capital protection.
• Comprehensive Due Diligence – Before lending, we assess law firms’ track records, financial health, and case viability to ensure they meet our lending criteria.
• Legal Precedent & Expert Review – We consult with barristers, law firms, and experts to evaluate claim types and expected outcomes.
• Ongoing Monitoring & Auditing – We track performance, flag risks early, and ensure compliance with agreed terms.
• Diversification – We fund a high volume of small, process-driven cases to spread risk across multiple firms and claims.

How do investors benefit from Fenchurch Legal's differentiated approach to the market? 

Investors choose Fenchurch Legal because they like our approach, which provides a predictable and secure investment opportunity. We operate as a direct lender offering structured loan facilities, meaning our investors benefit from a more stable, fixed-income-like investment model.

Our secured lending structure, combined with unique features such as risk management and diversification across a high volume of cases, provides investors with lower risk exposure and predictable returns.

As I often say, I come from a secured lending background, not a legal one. You wouldn’t ask us to stand up in court and argue a case, but you can trust us to look after investor money by structuring loans and managing risk effectively – that’s what we are good at.