Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is Not Third-Party Litigation Financing, ARC Argues
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

Defense Firms Move Into Contingency Work as Funders Supply Capital and Case Validation

Traditionally defense-oriented large law firms are increasingly taking on plaintiff-side engagements for their corporate clients, with litigation funders providing both the capital and an independent assessment of which claims merit pursuit.

As reported by Original Jurisdiction, the shift was the subject of a Burford Capital panel discussion examining how the historical division between plaintiff-side and defense-side practice has continued to erode. Corporate clients, panelists observed, have come to treat affirmative litigation as a balance sheet item rather than a cost center.

The reframing is straightforward: as one panelist put it, "if you have a meritorious legal claim, that is an asset" — one that can generate value for shareholders instead of sitting unused. Recognizing claims that way, however, requires firms built around hourly billing to absorb risk they have not historically carried.

That is where funders enter. By financing plaintiff-side matters, funders allow firms to pursue contingency work without exposing their own economics to a single outcome. Panelists also described the diligence funders perform as valuable in its own right, characterizing a funding commitment as "a vote of approval" on the strength of a claim.

The transition demands a change in orientation as much as in economics. Lawyers accustomed to defending must, in the words of one participant, "stop playing defense" and play offense, while managing budgets against work that generates no continuous hourly revenue. Larger corporate clients, meanwhile, are weighing potential recovery against the commercial relationships a claim may disturb, and selecting counsel accordingly.

Commercial

Drafting Determines Whether Funding Costs Are Recoverable in Singapore Arbitration, Practitioners Warn

Whether a successful party can recover its third-party funding costs in a Singapore-seated arbitration remains unsettled and turns substantially on how the funding agreement itself is structured, according to new practitioner guidance.

As reported by Pinsent Masons, recoverability is determined by tribunals on a case-by-case basis, with no settled rule compelling or barring an award of funding costs. The threshold for challenging a tribunal's costs determination in court is correspondingly high, reflecting Singapore's minimal-intervention approach to arbitral awards.

The analysis points to the Singapore International Commercial Court's decision in *DTH v DTF*, in which the court declined to disturb a tribunal's refusal to award funding costs alongside legal costs on an award of approximately $14.73 million. The SICC observed that it was "difficult to see how such a determination could be said to shock the conscience," signaling how little room parties have to relitigate costs allocation after the fact.

Drafting is where the guidance places the emphasis. Funding agreements must satisfy the requirements of section 5B of Singapore's Civil Law Act, and arrangements framed as commercial investments in the outcome rather than as funding for the costs of proceedings risk falling foul of the maintenance and champerty rules that section 5B carves out.

The practical implication for funders and funded parties is that the recoverability question is largely settled at the point of contracting, not at the costs stage. The guidance also notes the divergence between Singapore-seated arbitration and SICC proceedings, where recovery of funding costs remains prohibited outright.

Commercial

New Jersey Appellate Division Upholds Legal-Bay Medical Funding Agreement Against Statutory Challenge

New Jersey's Appellate Division has affirmed the enforceability of a Legal-Bay LLC funding agreement in *Viglianti v. Blue*, rejecting a plaintiff's argument that state insurance and lien statutes invalidated his obligation to repay the funder after his personal injury case settled.

According to PR Newswire, the underlying dispute arose after the plaintiff exhausted his automobile Personal Injury Protection benefits following a motor vehicle accident but still required spinal fusion surgery. Legal-Bay advanced $90,000 directly to his medical providers, allowing the procedure to proceed while his claim against the defendant remained pending.

After the case settled, the plaintiff challenged Legal-Bay's right to repayment, contending that New Jersey statutes governing PIP reimbursement and physician liens operated to void the funding agreement. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division disagreed. The appellate panel found that the cited statutes did not "invalidate or limit the agreement," characterizing it instead as a private contract voluntarily entered into by the plaintiff after consultation with counsel.

The decision is notable for the distinction it draws between statutory schemes regulating insurers and medical providers on one hand, and privately negotiated funding arrangements on the other. Rather than reading the PIP framework as occupying the field, the court treated the funding agreement as a separate contractual undertaking that the plaintiff was free to make.

For the consumer legal funding sector, the ruling supplies appellate-level support for medical funding structures in a state where the treatment of such arrangements has drawn recurring scrutiny. It also underscores the role documented consent and independent legal advice play when funders defend agreements against later statutory attack.