Trending Now
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

Academics Fact-Check German Business Lobby’s Case for Restricting Litigation Funding

Two competition law academics have published a point-by-point examination of the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry's position on collective redress and litigation funding, concluding that several of the central claims advanced in support of tighter restrictions are false, misleading or unsupported.

As set out in a Kluwer Competition Law Blog analysis by Eduardo Silva de Freitas of the Asser Institute and Lena Hornkohl of the University of Vienna, the DIHK statement calls for litigation funders to be brought under supervision comparable to financial market regulation and for funding agreements to be disclosed in full. The authors test five of its underlying assertions.

The DIHK's claim that transparency requirements are lacking is assessed as false: Article 10 of the Representative Actions Directive already establishes disclosure obligations for litigation funding arrangements. The assertion that funders operate in a "nearly unregulated space" is described as misleading, the authors pointing to a European Commission study finding that third-party funding legislation exists in the vast majority of EU member states.

The claim of a widespread consensus that the Directive requires significant improvement is treated as unsupported, with the authors finding no sufficient body of independent studies behind it. The criticism that no minimum registration period applies to qualified entities is called misleading, since Article 4(3)(a) requires 12 months of actual public activity before designation.

The analysis reserves particular attention for the DIHK's figure that funders typically take 20% to 50% of damages. The authors describe this as misleading, noting that German law caps funder remuneration at 10% and that differentiated models operate below that level.

Commercial

Law Firms Turn to MSO Structures to Access Outside Capital and Partner Liquidity

Management services organisations have become a leading route for outside investors to participate in the economics of US law firms without breaching the prohibition on non-lawyer ownership, and the structure is drawing sustained interest from private capital.

As explained in a Nixon Peabody analysis by Allan H. Cohen and Samantha R. Barbere, an MSO is a non-professional entity that provides administrative and support services to a professional practice. The arrangement separates professional ownership from administrative infrastructure: non-licensed investors may own the MSO, while licensed attorneys retain exclusive control of the law firm and all legal work.

The authors identify two principal motivations driving adoption. The first is access to capital, giving firms resources to invest in technology such as artificial intelligence and cybersecurity at a time of escalating client demands for efficiency. The second is partner liquidity — the bifurcated structure allows partners to monetise the value of their ownership through a sale to non-professional investors, expanding options beyond traditional buyouts and transactions between lawyers.

Execution requires care. Firms must transfer non-professional assets to the MSO and enter into an administrative services agreement governing the relationship. Critically, fees paid to the MSO must reflect fair market value for the services provided, rather than a percentage of revenue, in order to comply with the fee-splitting prohibition in ABA Model Rule 5.4(a).

For the litigation finance market, the structure matters because it represents a parallel channel for outside capital to reach the legal services sector — one that competes with, and in some cases complements, case-level and portfolio funding as a means of financing law firm growth.

Commercial

Govia Thameslink Class Action Collapses After Funding and Insurance Fall Through

A long-running opt-out collective action against Govia Thameslink Railway has come to an end after the claim failed to secure a replacement class representative backed by adequate funding and insurance, marking one of the more consequential funding-driven failures in the Competition Appeal Tribunal's collective proceedings regime.

As reported by Global Competition Review, the claim has collapsed as a result of funding problems. The proceedings, certified in October 2022, alleged pricing discrimination in the operator's fare structure on behalf of rail passengers.

The claim was left without a class representative following the death of David Boyle, who had brought the action. Walter Merricks, best known for leading the Mastercard collective action, applied to take over the role but withdrew in January 2026 after being unable to obtain after-the-event insurance for the proceedings.

That withdrawal carried its own consequences. As reported by the Law Society Gazette, the Tribunal ordered interim payments totalling £70,000 — £45,000 to the defendants and £25,000 to the estate — finding it "beyond argument" that reasonable costs incurred should be borne by Merricks and his funder, Litigation Capital Management. The Tribunal considered the £337,695 originally claimed to be excessive.

With the proceedings stayed, the Tribunal set a deadline of 4pm on 24 July for an application to approve a suitable replacement class representative, failing which the collective proceedings order would be revoked and the claim decertified.

The outcome underscores how tightly the viability of UK collective proceedings is bound to the availability of funding and ATE cover, and how quickly a certified claim can unravel when either becomes unobtainable.