Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Jason Levine, Partner at Foley & Lardner LLP
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial People Moves

Global Law Firm announce expansion and name change

August 8, 2022

Global Law Firm announce expansion and name change

Global law firm PGMBM will now be known as Pogust Goodhead after a succession of litigation victories.

Following a landmark ruling ensuring mining giant BHP will face their day of reckoning in the English courts over the Mariana dam disaster, the law firm will also be expanding their services in Brazil.

With the addition of a new office in Rio de Janeiro, Pogust Goodhead plans to continue spearheading environmental litigation in Brazil, as well as around the world through offices in the Netherlands and United States.

The expansion also includes plans for a new legal process outsourcing centre based in Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil to help process and service clients worldwide – which will bring over 300 jobs to the area.

Alongside the expansion into Brazil, the firm is growing its global securities department, with a new office in San Diego – headed up by experienced securities litigator Takeo Kellar. Enhancing this practise area aligns with Pogust Goodhead’s commitment to bringing shareholder engagement and litigation solutions to investors around the world.

The news comes after a series of historic settlements including on behalf of 15,000 claimants in the Volkswagen Group Litigation in May 2022 and 16,000 victims of the British Airways Data Breach in 2021.

A partnership and £100m funding deal with North Wall Capital was also recently announced as the largest investment in a UK claimant law firm to date.

The ongoing investment in Brazil will also see the addition of 20 new Brazilian lawyers in the coming weeks, after a series of UK hires.

Pogust Goodhead has recently seen the recruitment of C-Suite leaders Chief Operating Officer Alicia Alinia and Chief Financial Officer Jash Radia, bringing decades of experience in strategic leadership across the business.

Global Managing Partner and CEO Tom Goodhead said:

“In the past twelve months, we have successfully concluded group litigations against British Airways, Volkswagen and just last month we secured an extraordinary victory against the largest mining company in the world, BHP.

“Today we are moving to the next chapter. As the business continues to grow, it is vital that we make changes to ensure that we have a strong, reliable, and sustainable infrastructure to facilitate our ambitions to transform group litigation globally.

“Our Brazilian cases have always been the driving force of the firm and with a new office in Rio we hope to build on the great progress we have made with cases against defendants such as BHP and Tuv Sud.

“Most importantly we want to ensure our clients are given an even better experience and to ultimately ensure we represent their desire for justice, continuing to fight the good fight across all our litigations.”

Chairman Harris Pogust added:

“We are delighted to be building on the successes of recent years in what we feel is the next crucial step for our firm.  I am beyond proud to have my name standing big and bold next to my amazing partner, Tom Goodhead.  As we continue to grow the firm, brand recognition becomes an even more important item in our growth.  With this name change we believe the brand Pogust Goodhead will be one of the most recognizable in the legal landscape.

“There is no law firm out there doing the cutting edge, ground-breaking work on behalf of those who are in most need of legal representation than Pogust Goodhead, and these changes will ensure we take things to the next level.

“We are beyond proud of the talented people we have on board at the firm and the incredible work they do every day, championing justice for our clients.

“We are only just getting started.”

Commercial

View All
Commercial Legal Innovation

LSC Showcases Access-to-Justice Tech at San Antonio ITC

By John Freund |

The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) brought the access-to-justice conversation squarely into the technology arena with its 26th annual Innovations in Technology Conference (ITC), held this week in San Antonio. Drawing nearly 750 registered attendees from across the legal, business, and technology communities, the conference highlighted how thoughtfully deployed technology can expand civil legal assistance for low-income Americans while maintaining ethical and practical guardrails.

Legal Services Corporation reports that this year’s ITC convened attorneys, legal technologists, court staff, pro bono leaders, academics, and students at the Grand Hyatt San Antonio River Walk for three days of programming focused on the future of legal services delivery. The conference featured 56 panels—16 streamed online and freely accessible—covering topics ranging from artificial intelligence and cybersecurity to court technology, data-driven decision-making, and pro bono innovation.

LSC President Ron Flagg framed the event as a collaborative effort to ensure technology serves people rather than replaces human judgment. Emphasizing that technology is “not the answer by itself,” Flagg underscored its role as a critical tool when grounded in the real needs of communities seeking civil legal help. The conference opened with a keynote from journalist and author David Pogue, setting the tone for candid discussions about both the promise and limitations of emerging technologies.

A notable evolution this year was the introduction of five structured programming tracks—AI beginner, AI advanced, IT operations, client intake, and self-help tools—allowing attendees to tailor their experience based on technical familiarity and organizational needs. The event concluded with hands-on workshops addressing cybersecurity incident response, improving AI accuracy and reliability, change management for staff resilience, and user experience evaluation in legal tech.

Beyond the conference itself, ITC reinforced LSC’s broader leadership in access-to-justice technology, including its Technology Initiative Grants, AI Peer Learning Lab, and its recent report, The Next Frontier: Harnessing Technology to Close the Justice Gap. Senior program officer Jane Ribadeneyra emphasized the dual focus on informed leadership decisions and practical tools that directly support frontline legal services staff handling matters like eviction, domestic violence, and disaster recovery.

For the litigation funding and legal finance community, ITC’s themes highlight a growing intersection between technology, access to justice, and capital deployment—raising questions about how funders may increasingly support tech-enabled legal service models alongside traditional case funding.

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.