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

FCA Attacks Consumer Group Over Funding in £9.1bn Car Finance Battle

The Financial Conduct Authority has turned on a consumer campaign group in the escalating fight over Britain's £9.1 billion motor-finance redress scheme, questioning how the organization is funded and its ties to the law firm representing it.

As reported by The Guardian, the regulator has urged judges to dismiss a legal challenge brought by Consumer Voice, arguing the group failed to give "a full and frank explanation" of its own interest and that of its solicitors, Courmacs Legal. In court filings, the FCA suggested Consumer Voice had not been honest about its business model or its relationship with Courmacs, and had not disclosed details of its funding arrangements.

Consumer Voice contends the FCA's compensation scheme will low-ball victims of mis-sold car loans, who face an average payout of roughly £829 per agreement — higher than the £695 the regulator floated in its earlier consultation, but still, the group argues, well short of fair value. Lenders including Lloyds Banking Group, Santander, and the finance arms of Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz are on the hook for the £9.1 billion the FCA expects the scheme to cost.

The clash places the funding and structure of claims-side campaign groups squarely in the regulator's sights, echoing a wider debate over transparency in third-party-backed consumer litigation. With millions of drivers due payouts this year, the dispute over who speaks for claimants — and who pays for that advocacy — is likely to intensify.

Commercial

Treasury Rejects Longo’s Warning Over ASIC’s Depleted Litigation War Chest

Australia's Treasury has brushed aside warnings from former corporate regulator chair Joe Longo that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is running short of the money it needs to fund major enforcement litigation, insisting the watchdog is adequately resourced.

As reported by Capital Brief, Treasury said there were no funding concerns around ASIC, despite Longo's plea in May for an urgent top-up at the close of what he described as the regulator's most successful year in court. Longo had warned a parliamentary committee that ASIC's Enforcement Special Account — the reserve built to absorb the costs of large, complex cases — was on track to fall to its minimum viable level by 30 June 2026.

"Absent replenishment, this will impede ASIC's ability to maintain its current enforcement program," Longo cautioned, adding that without additional funding the regulator might have to scale back or defer cases that would otherwise proceed. The account is designed to let ASIC pursue resource-intensive matters against well-funded corporate defendants without straining its operating budget.

The exchange spotlights a tension increasingly familiar to litigation-finance observers: even a public enforcement agency depends on a dedicated pool of case capital to sustain high-stakes litigation, and the adequacy of that pool shapes which matters get pursued. Treasury's rejection of Longo's alarm leaves unresolved how ASIC will bankroll its most ambitious cases as the special account approaches the floor he flagged.

Commercial

Meru’s Withdrawal Highlights the Case for Litigation Funding in India

The decision by cab aggregator Meru to abandon its long-running competition appeal against Ola and Uber has become an unlikely rallying point for advocates of third-party litigation funding in India, illustrating how the absence of outside capital can force even well-founded claims to be dropped.

As reported by Moneycontrol, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal permitted Meru Travel Solutions to withdraw its appeal challenging a 2018 Competition Commission of India order that had closed its antitrust complaint at the preliminary stage. The tribunal noted that Meru's operations and revenues had deteriorated to the point that continuing the litigation was no longer viable.

The commentary argues that Meru's exit is less a verdict on the merits than a reflection of a financing gap. Had third-party funding been readily available, the analysis contends, a cash-strapped litigant might have pressed on rather than surrender a claim it could no longer afford to pursue.

India permits third-party funding — no statute expressly prohibits it, and agreements are governed largely by the Indian Contract Act and Bar Council conduct rules — but the market remains thinly developed and lightly regulated. As commercial courts gain stronger procedural powers under 2026 reforms and high-value technology, energy, and infrastructure disputes proliferate, general counsel and chief financial officers are increasingly weighing outside capital as a strategic tool. Meru's withdrawal, the piece suggests, is a case study in the cost of leaving that tool underused.