Trending Now
  • Legal-Bay Flags $8.5M Uber Verdict in Arizona Bellwether
  • Legal-Bay Expands Pre-Settlement Funding Services
Commercial Special Features

Early-Stage Funding (ESF): Bridging the Gap in Litigation Finance

By Drew Hathaway |
March 25, 2025

Early-Stage Funding (ESF): Bridging the Gap in Litigation Finance

The following was contributed by Drew Hathaway, Founding Partner of Ignitis

Litigation funding has become a powerful tool for leveling the playing field in legal disputes, particularly in large-scale collective redress and mass litigation. However, traditional litigation funding models generally focus on established claims, leaving many meritorious cases stranded without the resources to move forward. ESF changes that dynamic, ensuring that strong claims don’t fail due to a lack of early investment.

What is Early-Stage Funding (ESF)?

ESF is a litigation seed funding model designed to provide capital before a case is mature enough for traditional funders. Unlike standard litigation finance, which typically invests after a case has been filed and is well-developed, ESF supports cases at their most critical early phase—covering investigation, legal groundwork, expert reports, and strategic planning.

For many high-stakes claims this early-stage investment is the difference between a case moving forward or being abandoned due to financial constraints.

How Can ESF Be Used?

ESF can be used in various ways. Some examples are:

  • Case Investigation & Viability Assessments: Financing expert reports, forensic analysis, and economic modeling to strengthen claims.
  • Initial Legal Work: Supporting law firms in preparing legal arguments, securing lead claimants, and initiating regulatory engagement.
  • Claimant Outreach & Bookbuilding: Funding the early-stage efforts to build a robust claimant pool in opt-in and opt-out actions.
  • Litigation Structuring & Strategy: Ensuring that the case is structured in a way that will later attract traditional (Round B) litigation funders.

Who Benefits from ESF?

ESF benefits injured parties, law firms, and traditional litigation funders in the following ways:

Claimants: Claimants generally do not have the means to finance their own litigation. For individuals or businesses harmed by corporate misconduct, access to ESF means:

  • Non-recourse capital to get the claim off the ground (meaning the ESF only needs to be paid back if the case is fully funded). 
  • The case moves forward faster, without waiting for full-scale funding.
  • Access to top-tier legal representation capable of success against well-resourced defendants.
  • The claims are properly developed and strategically executed, increasing their chances of success.

Law Firms: Law firms working on large-scale litigation often struggle with taking on the full risk and high costs of early-stage case development. This stage generally takes significant work, bookended with long timelines to securing Round B funding before capital begins to be deployed. For law firms, access to ESF means:

  • They have immediate access to capital to help with law firm cash flows.
  • They no longer must take on full risk for their time and upfront resources needed to secure funding.
  • They can focus their attention on developing the best legal arguments possible rather than worrying about their up-front time commitment.
  • They have a better developed case to present to Round B funders, making it more efficient to secure full funding.

Round B Funders (Traditional Litigation Funders): Frequently Round B Funders are presented with cases that they believe are simply too early for investment. Traditional litigation funders benefit from ESF because:

  • They receive well-developed cases that have already passed viability assessments.
  • They have immediate access to expert reports and legal opinions to better analyze the case and risks.
  • The risk of investment is reduced, since much of the groundwork has been completed and expert opinions are available.
  • Their duration risk is significantly reduced because ESF has been deployed to jump start the case and litigation is ready to commence. 

Conclusion

As litigation finance evolves, ESF is emerging as an essential tool for claimants, law firms and funders alike. By enabling early-stage legal work and de-risking high-potential claims, ESF ensures that justice is not delayed or denied due to financial constraints.

If you are exploring funding options for an early-stage case, ESF could be the solution to unlocking its full potential. 

About the Author

Drew Hathaway is a Founding Partner of Ignitis, where he leads case development, business strategy, and litigation funding initiatives. A U.S.-trained class action lawyer, Drew brings nearly two decades of experience navigating complex, high-stakes disputes and has built a reputation for advancing impactful litigation across borders.

After beginning his career defending medical malpractice cases, Drew transitioned to the plaintiff side in 2016, where he later became a key figure in the growth of international collective redress. He played a central role in launching and scaling European collective actions, helping to secure and deploy over €100 million in funding for cases aimed at holding multinational corporations accountable. Drew has helped millions of Europeans gain access to justice.

Drew’s expertise spans the full lifecycle of cross-border collective litigation—from claim foundation setup and funding structures to jurisdictional strategy, cost and tax modeling, and claims management. His comparative knowledge of U.S. and European systems allows him to operate effectively at the intersection of law and finance, where he regularly collaborates with leading law firms, economists, litigation funders, and academic experts.

He is a frequent speaker on international collective redress and litigation finance and is deeply committed to expanding access to justice for individuals and consumers harmed by systemic corporate misconduct.

He earned his B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his J.D. from Campbell University School of Law, where he was a National Moot Court Team member, Order of Old Kivett inductee, and editor of the Campbell Law Observer.

Drew is admitted to practice law in North Carolina, multiple U.S. federal and appellate courts, and in England and Wales.

About the author

Drew Hathaway

Drew Hathaway

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Senators Introduce Federal Legislation Mandating Disclosure of Third-Party Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

A bipartisan coalition of U.S. Senators introduced sweeping federal legislation on February 12, 2026, that would require mandatory disclosure of third-party litigation funding (TPLF) in class actions and multi-district litigation proceedings. The Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026, sponsored by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Thom Tillis (R-NC), John Kennedy (R-LA), and John Cornyn (R-TX), represents the most significant federal legislative push for TPLF transparency to date.

As reported in the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, the legislation would mandate public disclosure of third-party litigation funding arrangements and the underlying funding agreements in federal class actions and MDLs. Critically, the bill would also prohibit funders from controlling decision-making or overall litigation strategy in these cases. The legislation includes specific provisions requiring disclosure of foreign funding sources, addressing growing national security concerns about foreign entities bankrolling American litigation.

"Outside financiers treat our court system like a casino. They drive up costs for consumers and put our national and economic security at risk," said ILR President Stephen Waguespack in response to the bill's introduction. The legislation includes exemptions for domestic nonprofit organizations providing services on a nonprofit basis and certain commercial enterprises expecting loan repayment.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and multiple industry groups have endorsed the legislation, emphasizing that transparency will hold litigators accountable and protect consumers from rising costs and delays caused by external financial influences. The bill text is available through the Senate Judiciary Committee, marking a potentially transformative moment in the ongoing debate over litigation finance regulation.

Commercial

Arizona Supreme Court Targets Out-of-State Legal Work

By John Freund |

Arizona is moving to tighten oversight of law firms that outsource legal work across state lines, signaling a renewed focus on the ethics and economics of cross-border legal services. The shift reflects broader concerns about client protection, unauthorized practice of law, and the evolving structure of modern law firms that increasingly rely on distributed teams.

An article in Bloomberg Law reports that the Arizona Supreme Court is advancing measures designed to limit the extent to which Arizona-licensed firms can “ship” legal work to lawyers in other jurisdictions. The proposed changes would require clearer disclosure when out-of-state attorneys handle matters for Arizona clients and reinforce rules around supervision and responsibility. Regulators have expressed concern that some firms may be leveraging lower-cost legal labor in other states without ensuring adequate oversight, potentially exposing clients to risk.

While outsourcing and multi-jurisdictional practice are hardly new phenomena, the court’s action underscores mounting scrutiny of how legal services are delivered in an era of remote work and alternative business structures. Arizona has been at the forefront of legal innovation, notably as the first US state to eliminate Rule 5.4’s ban on non-lawyer ownership of law firms. Yet this latest development suggests that innovation will be accompanied by guardrails aimed at preserving ethical standards and accountability.

For law firms operating nationally—or those backed by external capital—the message is clear: regulatory arbitrage may face increasing resistance at the state level. As alternative legal service models continue to expand, courts and regulators are likely to sharpen their focus on supervision, transparency, and client protection.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

CSAA Sees 2026 Shift in Litigation Finance Fight

By John Freund |

A senior legal executive at CSAA Insurance Group has signaled what she describes as a potential turning point in the long-running conflict between insurers and the litigation finance industry. Speaking amid heightened political and regulatory scrutiny of third-party funding, the comments reflect growing confidence among insurers that momentum is shifting in their favor after years of unsuccessful pushback.

An article in Insurance Business reports that CSAA’s chief legal officer argued that 2026 could mark a decisive phase in efforts to rein in litigation finance, citing increasing legislative interest and judicial awareness of the role funding plays in driving claim frequency and severity. According to the article, CSAA views litigation funding as a key contributor to social inflation, a term insurers use to describe the rising costs of claims driven by larger jury verdicts, expanded liability theories, and aggressive litigation tactics.

The executive pointed to a wave of proposed disclosure rules and transparency initiatives at both the state and federal levels as evidence that lawmakers are taking insurer concerns more seriously. These proposals generally seek to require plaintiffs to disclose whether a third-party funder has a financial interest in a case, a reform insurers argue is necessary to assess conflicts, settlement dynamics, and the true economics of litigation. While many of these measures remain contested, CSAA appears encouraged by what it sees as a shift in tone compared to previous years.

The article also highlights the broader industry context in which these comments were made. Insurers have increasingly framed litigation finance as a systemic risk rather than a niche practice, linking it to higher premiums, reduced coverage availability, and increased volatility in underwriting results. Litigation funders, for their part, continue to argue that funding expands access to justice and that disclosure mandates risk revealing sensitive strategy and privileged information.