Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Jason Levine, Partner at Foley & Lardner LLP
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Dane Lund, Managing Director, Juris Capital

By John Freund |
February 18, 2025

Community Spotlight: Dane Lund, Managing Director, Juris Capital

Dane Lund has built a career at the intersection of law and finance, bringing a distinctive blend of legal acumen and financial expertise to the evolving world of litigation funding. He began his professional journey after graduating from Harvard Law School as a litigation associate at Willkie Farr & Gallagher in 2012, where he gained firsthand experience navigating complex commercial disputes and understanding the strategic nuances that drive legal outcomes.

Eager to broaden his perspective, Dane transitioned into investment banking, joining the Financial Sponsors Group at Barclays. There, he developed a rigorous foundation in evaluating risk, structuring deals, and analyzing the dynamics of capital markets—skills that would later prove invaluable in the realm of legal finance.

Following his time at Barclays, Dane pursued investment roles focused on equities, private debt, and legal finance, deepening his expertise across both traditional and alternative asset classes. This diverse background positioned him perfectly for the litigation finance space, where legal strategy and capital management intersect. In 2024, he joined Juris Capital as Managing Director, where he helps shape the firm’s approach to funding commercial litigation.

At the core of Dane’s investment philosophy is a simple yet powerful belief: “Patient capital wins.”

For Dane, this isn’t just a tagline—it’s the guiding principle. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, often requiring strategic persistence and disciplined, long-term thinking to achieve the best outcomes. In an industry where quick returns are rare, Dane emphasizes that success comes from having the foresight to invest thoughtfully and the patience to see cases through to their full potential.

“We’re experiencing a sea change in how law is practiced,” says Dane. “Legal finance isn’t just a funding mechanism—it’s a catalyst for innovation within the legal sector.”

Company Name and Description: Juris Capital provides funding for commercial litigation claims. The firm collaborates with businesses and law firms to support the financial aspects of pursuing complex legal matters. Dane notes that Juris’s approach is shaped by its understanding of legal processes and the financial considerations involved in managing long-term investments. Its focus spans a variety of case types, including breach of contract disputes, corporate governance issues, and antitrust matters.

Website: https://www.juriscapitalcorp.com/

Founded: 2009

Headquarters: Chicago

Member Quote: “Legal finance is expanding beyond traditional litigation into areas like legal tech, contingent risk management, and law firm operations. It’s not just about funding cases anymore—it’s about unlocking value in legal assets that were previously considered illiquid or inaccessible. That’s where the future lies.”

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial Legal Innovation

LSC Showcases Access-to-Justice Tech at San Antonio ITC

By John Freund |

The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) brought the access-to-justice conversation squarely into the technology arena with its 26th annual Innovations in Technology Conference (ITC), held this week in San Antonio. Drawing nearly 750 registered attendees from across the legal, business, and technology communities, the conference highlighted how thoughtfully deployed technology can expand civil legal assistance for low-income Americans while maintaining ethical and practical guardrails.

Legal Services Corporation reports that this year’s ITC convened attorneys, legal technologists, court staff, pro bono leaders, academics, and students at the Grand Hyatt San Antonio River Walk for three days of programming focused on the future of legal services delivery. The conference featured 56 panels—16 streamed online and freely accessible—covering topics ranging from artificial intelligence and cybersecurity to court technology, data-driven decision-making, and pro bono innovation.

LSC President Ron Flagg framed the event as a collaborative effort to ensure technology serves people rather than replaces human judgment. Emphasizing that technology is “not the answer by itself,” Flagg underscored its role as a critical tool when grounded in the real needs of communities seeking civil legal help. The conference opened with a keynote from journalist and author David Pogue, setting the tone for candid discussions about both the promise and limitations of emerging technologies.

A notable evolution this year was the introduction of five structured programming tracks—AI beginner, AI advanced, IT operations, client intake, and self-help tools—allowing attendees to tailor their experience based on technical familiarity and organizational needs. The event concluded with hands-on workshops addressing cybersecurity incident response, improving AI accuracy and reliability, change management for staff resilience, and user experience evaluation in legal tech.

Beyond the conference itself, ITC reinforced LSC’s broader leadership in access-to-justice technology, including its Technology Initiative Grants, AI Peer Learning Lab, and its recent report, The Next Frontier: Harnessing Technology to Close the Justice Gap. Senior program officer Jane Ribadeneyra emphasized the dual focus on informed leadership decisions and practical tools that directly support frontline legal services staff handling matters like eviction, domestic violence, and disaster recovery.

For the litigation funding and legal finance community, ITC’s themes highlight a growing intersection between technology, access to justice, and capital deployment—raising questions about how funders may increasingly support tech-enabled legal service models alongside traditional case funding.

Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.