Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight:  Maz Ghorban, President, Rockpoint Legal Funding

By John Freund |
February 27, 2025

Community Spotlight:  Maz Ghorban, President, Rockpoint Legal Funding

As President of Rockpoint Legal Funding, Maz Ghorban brings over 25 years of leadership experience spanning the legal services, call center, and software industries. With a proven track record of scaling private and public companies, Maz drives Rockpoint’s mission to empower plaintiffs by providing critical funding, accessible medical treatment, and operational efficiencies for law firms.

Based in Los Angeles, Maz oversees Rockpoint’s innovative offerings, which include pre-settlement and post-settlement funding, plaintiff and litigation funding, and medical lien purchases. He is also leading the launch of Rockpoint Probate Funding, a groundbreaking initiative aimed at providing financial relief to beneficiaries and executors navigating the complex probate process. This service enables heirs to access funds for urgent expenses such as medical bills, funeral costs, and daily living needs, bridging the gap during inheritance delays.

Before joining Rockpoint, Maz served as Executive Vice President and Business Unit CEO at Alert Communications, where he enhanced operational efficiencies for law firms nationwide by leading the largest legal-only intake call center in the United States. Prior to that, he was Vice President of Global Services at AbacusNext (now Caret), a premier provider of practice management solutions for law and accounting firms. His leadership roles also include serving as Vice President of Corporate Strategy and M&A at OnSolve, a leader in emergency mass notification solutions.

Earlier in his career, Maz held senior management roles at West Corporation and Raindance, where he focused on post-sale operations and corporate strategy. As Senior Vice President of Corporate Strategy at MIR3, he spearheaded mergers and acquisitions, including the successful sale of the company to Veritas Capital. With a comprehensive understanding of the legal services lifecycle, Maz has dedicated two decades to supporting plaintiff and defense firms with case acquisition, case management, IT/technology solutions, and firm operations.

A recognized thought leader in the legal and financial services industries, Maz frequently shares his expertise on topics such as litigation funding, corporate strategy, and operational excellence. Outside of his professional endeavors, Maz is a passionate Pittsburgh Steelers fan who enjoys teaching boxing, playing musical instruments, and spending quality time with his family.

Under Maz’s leadership, Rockpoint Legal Funding continues to set industry benchmarks for innovation, excellence, and client satisfaction. His strategic vision and unwavering commitment position the company as a trusted partner for plaintiffs, law firms, and beneficiaries seeking comprehensive financial solutions in the legal sector.

Company Name and Description:  Rockpoint Legal Funding provides tailored financial solutions for plaintiffs and law firms, offering critical funding to individuals involved in litigation, including personal injury and employment cases. By bridging financial gaps during the legal process, Rockpoint empowers plaintiffs to access necessary medical care and living expenses while helping law firms streamline operations and maximize case outcomes.

Company Website: https://rockpointlegalfunding.com/

Year Founded: 2015

Headquarters:  Serving clients across the United States, with a strong presence and specialized focus in California.

Area of Focus: When individuals face financial challenges during the litigation process, Rockpoint Legal Funding provides essential solutions to bridge the gap. By offering pre-settlement and post-settlement funding, as well as medical lien purchasing, Rockpoint enables plaintiffs to access necessary medical care and cover living expenses without the financial strain.

Law firms also benefit from Rockpoint’s tailored funding solutions, which streamline operations and improve case outcomes. With a commitment to empowering plaintiffs and supporting legal professionals, Rockpoint Legal Funding plays a vital role in facilitating access to justice while driving efficiency and innovation in the legal funding industry.

Rockpoint continues to expand its impact through initiatives like Rockpoint Probate Funding, addressing financial needs during the complex probate process. For more information, visit Rockpoint Legal Funding.

Member Quote: “Don’t count the days, make the days count.” – Muhammad Ali

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
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.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.