Trending Now
Commercial People Moves

Chris Dore Joins Bridge Legal as Managing Director, Strategic Opportunities

By Harry Moran |
October 7, 2024

Chris Dore Joins Bridge Legal as Managing Director, Strategic Opportunities

Bridge Legal, a leading provider of AI legal workflows, data management, and predictive analytics solutions for litigation funders and the high-volume law firms they support, is pleased to announce the appointment of Chris Dore as Managing Director, Strategic Opportunities.

With over 15 years of experience as a litigator and litigation funder specializing in mass torts, single-event, and class-action matters, Chris brings a wealth of expertise to Bridge Legal. Prior to joining the company, he served as a Partner at Edelson PC, a nationally recognized mass tort and class-action law firm, and most recently as a Director at Burford Capital, the world’s largest litigation funder.

In his new role, Chris will focus on expanding and managing Bridge Legal’s capital market strategies in high-volume consumer litigation. He will leverage the company’s industry leading marketing, intake, case maturation, and AI-driven software platform—Bridgify—to strengthen relationships within the mass tort, mass arbitration, and single-event space. His efforts aim to enhance the sophistication of services offered to Bridge Legal’s law firm and litigation funder clients, providing them with the tools and resources necessary to thrive amidst increasing data complexity and operational risk.

“Bridgify’s AI workflow capabilities are transforming the way litigation funders and law firms operate by providing unprecedented visibility over their investments and case portfolios,” said Ed Scanlan, Founder & CEO of Bridge Legal. “We are thrilled to welcome Chris to our leadership team. His extensive experience in mass torts and litigation funding aligns perfectly with our strategic vision. With his leadership, we aim to further enhance Bridgify’s AI-driven solutions to meet the evolving needs of litigation funders and the firms they support. Chris’s role will be pivotal in deepening our relationships within the industry and elevating the services we provide.”

“I’m excited to join the leading legal tech company in the industry,” said Chris. “Bridgify represents the future of high-volume legal services and litigation funding by integrating AI to streamline and enhance every facet of investment and case management. By focusing on expanding capital investments in high-volume consumer litigation and leveraging Bridge Legal’s innovative platforms, we can provide unparalleled value to our clients. I look forward to contributing to Bridge Legal’s mission of increasing human access to justice and helping to lead the company into its next chapter.”

About Bridge Legal

Bridge Legal is the leading provider of AI workflow and predictive analytics solutions for litigation funders and the law firms they support. From its Chicago office, the company also offers marketing and intake services to help firms build their dockets, as well as back-office support for rapid case prove-up, including Plaintiff Fact Sheets and medical record reviews. Combined with its flagship platform, Bridgify—which includes data management and normalization, AI-driven workflow automation, integration management, predictive analytics, client communication and asset monitoring and fund management—this provides a game-changing, flexible offering unmatched in the industry. By integrating advanced technology with industry expertise, Bridge Legal empowers its clients to streamline operations, enhance client services, and drive profitable growth in an increasingly complex legal landscape.

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Life After PACCAR: What’s Next for Litigation Funding?

By John Freund |

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.