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.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Legalist Expands into Government Contractor Lending

By John Freund |

Litigation funder Legalist is moving beyond its core offering of case-based finance and launching a new product aimed at helping government contractors manage cash flow. The San Francisco-based firm, which made its name advancing capital to plaintiffs and law firms in exchange for a share of litigation proceeds, is now offering loans backed by government receivables.

An article in Considerable outlines how Legalist’s latest product is designed to serve small and midsize contractors facing long payment delays—often 30 to 120 days—from federal agencies. These businesses frequently struggle to cover payroll, purchase materials, or bid on new work while waiting for disbursements, and traditional lenders are often unwilling to bridge the gap due to regulatory complexities and slow timelines.

Unlike litigation finance, where returns are tied to legal outcomes, these loans are secured by awarded contracts or accounts receivable from government entities. Legalist sees overlap in risk profiling, having already built underwriting systems around uncertain and delayed payouts in the legal space.

For Legalist, the move marks a significant expansion of its alternative credit offerings, applying its expertise in delayed-cashflow environments to a broader market segment. And for the legal funding industry, it signals the potential for funders to diversify their revenue models by repurposing their infrastructure for adjacent verticals. As more players explore government receivables or non-litigation-based financing, the definition of “litigation finance” may continue to evolve.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Funders’ Hidden Control Spurs Calls for Litigation‑Funding Transparency

By John Freund |

Litigation funding contracts are usually sealed from public view—but recently disclosed agreements suggest they often grant funders much more power than commonly acknowledged. A batch of nine contracts submitted by Lawyers for Civil Justice, a corporate and defense‑oriented group, to a judicial panel considering a proposed federal rule to mandate disclosure reveals funders in some instances reserve the right to reject settlement offers, choose or even replace counsel, and take over lawsuits entirely.

An article in Reuters explains that one example involves a 2022 contract between Burford Capital and Sysco Corp, in which Sysco is forbidden to accept a settlement without the funder’s written approval. Another case shows a contract with Longford Capital treating a change of counsel as a “Material Adverse Event,” again requiring funder consent. These terms reveal control far beyond the “passive investor” role many funders claim.

Currently, many funders argue that because their agreements do not always alter case control in practice, full disclosure of the contracts is unnecessary. But defenders of transparency say even the potential for control—whether or not exercised—can materially affect litigation outcomes, especially in settlement negotiations.

There is increasing momentum toward mandatory disclosure. Over 100 corporations, including those in tech, pharma, and automotive sectors, have urged the U.S. Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to adopt a rule requiring disclosure of funder identities and control rights. Several states (like Kansas, Louisiana, Indiana, West Virginia) have also put disclosure requirements into law. In Kansas, for instance, courts may review full funding agreements in private, while opposing parties receive more limited disclosures.

Case Developments Commercial

LCM Exits Gladstone Class Action; Writes Off A$30.8M

By John Freund |

Litigation Capital Management has pulled funding from a long-running Australian class action brought by commercial fishers against the state-owned Gladstone Ports Corporation, opting to cut its losses and reset capital allocation. The funder said the case has now settled on terms that provide a full release between the parties and a payment to the defendant toward costs—covered in full by after-the-event insurance—pending court approval in late October.

An announcement on Investegate details that LCM will write off A$30.8 million, equal to its cash invested, and has launched a formal strategic review with Luminis Partners. Management attributed the exit to portfolio discipline following adverse outcomes and noted preparation issues and aspects of expert evidence that, in the company’s view, no longer supported the case theory.

LCM is pursuing two potential recovery avenues: a costs assessment it says could recoup a portion of legal fees paid, and a prospective claim against the original solicitors for alleged breach of contract and negligence. Beyond this case, LCM flagged near-term milestones: an expected judgment within roughly three weeks in a separate UK commercial litigation co-funded alongside Fund I (A$20.6 million LCM capital at stake), and a decision soon on permission to appeal an April 1 arbitration loss.

Full-year FY25 results will be presented on October 1, when management plans to update investors on strategy and portfolio priorities.