Trending Now
Commercial Fundraising

EvenUp Raises $135M in Series D Funding and Launches New Products to Help Level the Playing Field in Personal Injury Cases

By Harry Moran |
October 8, 2024

EvenUp Raises $135M in Series D Funding and Launches New Products to Help Level the Playing Field in Personal Injury Cases

Today, EvenUp, the market leader in personal injury AI and document generation, announced it has raised a $135 million Series D round of funding and significantly expanded its AI workflow and product suite. The round was led by Bain Capital Ventures, with participation from Premji Invest, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Bessemer Venture Partners, SignalFire, and B Capital Group. This brings the company’s total funding to $235 million, with $220 million raised over the last 18 months. One of the largest funding rounds in legal AI history, it puts EvenUp’s valuation at over $1 billion.

“At EvenUp, our mission is to close the justice gap through the power of technology and AI,” said Rami Karabibar, CEO and co-founder of EvenUp. “We empower personal injury firms to deliver higher standards of representation, with the goal of ultimately helping the 20 million injury victims in the U.S. achieve fairer outcomes each year. With our latest products, funding, and proprietary data, we’re now better equipped to serve our customers. We’re also excited to continue investing in our talent, expanding our world-class leadership team with recent executive leaders from public companies.”

Over 1,000 law firms use EvenUp, which has helped them claim over $1.5 billion in damages. EvenUp has flagged $200 million in missing documents, leading to settlement increases of up to 30% – putting more money back in plaintiffs’ pockets faster. Based on internal data analysis, EvenUp’s flagship product, Demands, is 69% more likely than non-EvenUp demand letters to achieve a policy limit settlement.

EvenUp’s all-in-one Claims Intelligence Platform™ is powered by its AI model known as Piai™, which is trained on hundreds of thousands of injury cases, millions of medical records and visits, and internal legal expertise. The company’s new suite of products span across the personal injury case lifecycle and include:

Equip case managers and attorneys with the tools for successful representation 

  • Case Preparation: Law firm staff manage large volumes of cases and engage in painstaking document review tasks. Despite this, an alarming rate of claims are submitted with missing supporting documents. Case Preparation is the first product of its kind to proactively help case managers make the best decisions across the lifecycle of their cases, including identifying missing documents early and simplifying the review of records, improving the quality of case preparation, and reducing time to settlement.
  • Negotiation Preparation: Negotiation Preparation helps injury professionals ensure they’re never caught off guard in negotiations with insights on strengths, weaknesses, and key facts. Attorneys are then empowered with Case Companion, a state-of-the-art AI case assistant for real-time answers to complex questions, to quickly navigate their documents and return sourced-based answers.

Enable firms to reach new levels of performance

  • Executive Analytics: Executive Analytics makes rich insights and powerful benchmarks from EvenUp’s proprietary dataset easily accessible. AI insights across key case metrics like treatment continuity, demand delays, and more ensure executives have the data they need at their fingertips to unlock new best-in-class performance.

Equip attorneys with new visibility into their historical settlements

  • Settlement Repository: With over 95% of cases settled privately, firms have lacked clean internal data to evaluate potential offers or inform negotiations on behalf of their clients. Settlement Repository solves this challenge.

EvenUp’s engineering and product teams, which span 100+ people, have shipped 50+ releases this year alone. Twenty percent of its customers are already multi-product users, and EvenUp drafts 1,000+ documents per week for its customers, positioning EvenUp as the largest AI-document drafting platform in the U.S. Revenue has grown over 100% year-over-year, and EvenUp has also more than doubled its workforce in the U.S. and Canada in the past 12 months.

“Everyone is looking for ways that Gen AI can help people in the real world, and EvenUp’s multi-product approach is the perfect example of that,” said Aaref Hilaly, partner at Bain Capital Ventures. “The work Rami and his team are doing in the legal technology space is unmatched, especially given the quality of data they provide to customers and their new workflow products. We are excited to double down and invest again in EvenUp as they embark on this new chapter.”

“We are beyond excited to partner with EvenUp, which is streamlining the day-to-day tasks of attorneys and case managers. The product velocity here is like no other – EvenUp will soon serve as the singular technology platform addressing nearly every pain point personal injury attorneys face,” said Sandesh Patnam, Managing Partner at Premji Invest.

“EvenUp’s powerful insights have reshaped how we make decisions,” said Steve Mehr, founder & partner at Sweet James. “Access to this type of business intelligence solidifies our position as the market leader. Their platform enables us to stay ahead of the competition while scaling with precision and confidence.”

“With first-of-its-kind transparency into case settlement outcomes, EvenUp truly lives up to its name by empowering advocates with accurate data, ensuring injured victims receive fair and full compensation,” said Bob Simon, co-founder of The Simon Law Group.

Find out more about EvenUp’s new products here: https://www.evenuplaw.com/

About EvenUp

EvenUp is on a mission to level the playing field in personal injury cases. EvenUp applies machine learning and its AI model known as Piai™ to reduce manual effort and maximize case outcomes across the personal injury value chain. Combining in-house human legal expertise with proprietary AI and software to analyze records. The Claims Intelligence Platform™ provides rich business insights, AI workflow automation, and best-in-class document creation for injury law firms. EvenUp is the trusted partner of personal injury law firms. Backed by top VCs, including Bessemer Venture Partners, Bain Capital Ventures (BCV), SignalFire, NFX, DCM, and more, EvenUp’s customers range from top trial attorneys to America’s largest personal injury firms. EvenUp was founded in late 2019 and is headquartered in San Francisco. Learn more at www.evenuplaw.com.

About Bain Capital VenturesBain Capital Ventures (BCV) is a multi-stage VC firm with over $10B under management investing across seven core domains—AI applications, AI infrastructure, commerce, fintech, healthcare, industrials and security. Leveraging the unique resources of Bain Capital, BCV deploys targeted support at every stage of the company-building journey. For over 20 years, BCV has helped launch and commercialize more than 400 companies including Attentive, Apollo.io, Bloomreach, Clari, Docusign, Flywire, LinkedIn, Moveworks, Redis and ShipBob. For more information, visit www.baincapitalventures.com.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

BHP Presses Gramercy–Pogust on Control of £36bn Claim

By John Freund |

A high-stakes governance fight is spilling into the UK’s largest group action. BHP has demanded clarity over hedge fund Gramercy Funds Management’s role at Pogust Goodhead, the claimant firm fronting a £36 billion suit tied to Brazil’s 2015 Mariana dam disaster. The miner’s counsel at Slaughter and May points to recent leadership turmoil at the firm and questions whether a non-lawyer financier can exert de facto control over litigation strategy—an issue that cuts to the heart of legal ethics and England & Wales’ restrictions on who can direct claims.

Financial Times reports that Gramercy, which finances Pogust, has just extended $65 million more to the firm after the removal of CEO-cofounder Tom Goodhead. BHP wants answers on independence and management oversight as the case nears a pivotal High Court ruling. For its part, Pogust says it remains independent and committed to its clients, while Gramercy rejects any suggestion it owns or manages the firm. The backdrop is familiar to funders: courts’ increasing scrutiny of who calls the shots when capital underwrites complex, bet-the-company litigation. Prior settlement overtures from BHP and Vale—reported at $1.4 billion—were rebuffed as insufficient relative to the claim’s scale and alleged harm.

Beyond this case, the episode underscores a larger question: how far can financing arrangements go before they collide with the long-standing principle that lawyers—and only lawyers—control litigation? The answer matters well beyond Mariana. If courts or legislators tighten the definition of control, expect deal terms, governance covenants, and disclosure norms in UK funding to evolve quickly. For cross-border mass-harm claims, the line between support and steer is narrowing—and being tested in real time.

Case Developments Commercial

ALF-Member Backs Amazon UK Pricing Class Action

By John Freund |

A new opt-out competition claim aims squarely at Amazon, alleging price-parity tactics inflated costs for more than 45 million UK consumers. The Association of Consumer Support Organisations has filed for certification in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, instructing Stephenson Harwood with counsel from Monckton Chambers. The claim asserts Amazon’s marketplace policies restricted third-party sellers from offering better prices elsewhere—costs that, ACSO says, consumers ultimately bore.

The Global Legal Post notes a third-party litigation funder—confirmed as a member of the Association of Litigation Funders—is bankrolling the action, with identity to be revealed at certification. That disclosure posture aligns with the CAT’s funder-transparency expectations post-PACCAR while preserving competitive sensitivity during the early phase. On the defense side, Amazon labeled the case “without merit,” and emphasized consumer benefits and seller support on its platform. For claimant-side practitioners, the case illustrates how funders continue to underwrite large opt-out competition claims notwithstanding shifting case law on damages-based LFAs; structures are adjusting, not retreating.

If certified, the case will test funder appetite for big-ticket consumer competition matters amid the UK government’s newly announced review of the collective actions regime. It could also influence how funders structure returns (percentage vs. multiple, hybrids) to thread the needle between tribunal oversight and commercial viability. Watch for whether the CAT’s scrutiny of fees and “just and reasonable” outcomes further standardizes funding terms across UK opt-out claims.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Funding of collective actions under the spotlight

By Tom Webster |

The following was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer for Sentry Funding.

The UK government is seeking views on the operation of litigation funding in the collective actions sphere, as part of its wider review of the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law.

An open call for evidence by the Department for Business & Trade (DBT) earlier this month featured a number of questions relating to litigation funding. These included whether the approach to funders’ share of settlement sums or damages is fair and proportionate; how the secondary market in litigation funding has developed and whether this has affected transparency and client confidentiality; whether funding provision for the full potential cost of claims is considered enough at the outset; and how conflict between litigation funders and class representatives should be approached.

As well as funding issues within the regime, the review will also look at scope and certification of cases; alternative dispute resolution, settlement and damages; and distribution of funds.

The DBT said it was time to review the operation and impact of the opt-out collective actions regime in competition law, as it is now ten years since its introduction through the Consumer Rights Act 2015. 

It said: ‘This government is focused on economic growth, and a regime that is proportionate and focused on returns to consumers where they are due is good for growth and investment.

‘However, we are aware of the potential burden on business that increased exposure to litigation can present. Finding the right balance between achieving redress for consumers and limiting the burden on business is essential to ensure that businesses can operate with certainty, whilst providing a clear, cost-effective, route for consumers.’

Providing background to its review, the DBT noted that when it was introduced in 2015, the regime was intended to make it easier for consumers, including businesses, to seek redress where they have suffered loss due to breach of competition law. It said that since then, the regime has developed and expanded significantly: ‘tens of billions’ of pounds in damages have been claimed, and ‘hundreds of millions’ of pounds spent on legal fees. The DBT said this was far higher than anticipated in the original impact assessment, which estimated the total cost to business to be just £30.8 million per annum.

The DBT also noted that the type of case being brought before the CAT has also developed in ‘unexpected’ ways. When the regime was introduced, it was expected that most cases would be follow-on claims, brought after the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) or European Commission have already investigated anti-competitive behaviour and made an adverse finding. However, approximately 90% of the current caseload is now made up of standalone cases, the DBT said.

The government also pointed out that only one case (Justin Le Patourel v BT Group Plc [2024] CAT 76) has reached judgment in the CAT, with other certified cases generally concluding in settlement outside of court. This means that there has been limited precedent set on key issues such as damages and distribution, it asserted.

Proponents of the collective actions regime have pointed out that it is still relatively new, and has been subject to much challenge by defendants. But while it will inevitably take time to bed in, they argue that the regime is already effective in improving corporate behaviour and levelling the playing field for consumers.

The government said its review will also take into account existing work relevant to the regime, such as the Civil Justice Council (CJC)’s recent report on litigation funding.  

Its call for evidence will close on 14 October.