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 |

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.

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.