Trending Now
Commercial

Jonathan Sablone Launches Sablone Advisory LLC, a Boutique Law and Advisory Firm Focused on Litigation Finance

By John Freund |
April 29, 2026

Jonathan Sablone Launches Sablone Advisory LLC, a Boutique Law and Advisory Firm Focused on Litigation Finance

Jonathan Sablone, a commercial disputes attorney with three decades of cross-border, financial services, and litigation finance experience, has launched Sablone Advisory LLC — a Boston-based boutique positioned to serve claimants, funders, and insurers across the legal finance ecosystem under the tagline “at the intersection of law and finance™.”

According to Sablone Advisory LLC, the new firm offers underwriting, diligence, monitoring, and asset management services to litigation funders and to insurers offering contingent risk products. On the claimant side, Sablone Advisory works with plaintiffs and their counsel to position cases for funding, including packaging case portfolios for cross-collateralized funding and insurance wrappers — services that have become increasingly central as funders and insurers structure deals across multiple matters and risk layers.

“I founded Sablone Advisory to assist clients with the most intractable problems and issues facing the legal finance industry,” said Sablone in announcing the launch. “‘At the intersection of law and finance’ is not just a slogan, but a practical, commercial approach to legal problem-solving that I have practiced for decades.”

The launch reflects a continuing trend in the litigation finance industry: senior practitioners with capital-markets and complex-litigation backgrounds spinning out of large institutional platforms to offer specialized, independent advisory and underwriting services. As funders increasingly structure portfolio-level deals, layer ATE and contingent risk insurance into capital stacks, and pursue cross-border recoveries, demand for senior independent diligence and asset management — particularly from professionals fluent in both legal strategy and structured finance — has grown.

For claimants and their counsel, the firm’s case-positioning services are likely to resonate in a market where funders are increasingly selective about case quality, structure, and counsel pedigree. For funders and insurers, an independent boutique offering monitoring and asset management — separate from origination — represents the kind of service-provider infrastructure that more mature alternative-asset markets typically develop as they scale.

Inquiries can be directed to Jonathan Sablone at jsablone@sabloneadvisory.com or via www.sabloneadvisory.com.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Colorado HB 1421 Targets PE and Non-Attorney Funding of Law Firms in Bipartisan Push

By John Freund |

Colorado lawmakers have introduced HB 1421, a bill that would sharply restrict the ability of state law firms to enter financial or contractual arrangements with alternative business structures (ABS) and any entity in which non-attorneys hold ownership stakes or exert direction over legal practice. The bill is notable both for the reach of its restrictions and for the unusual coalition behind it.

As reported by The Sum and Substance, the legislation is sponsored by Democratic Rep. Javier Mabrey of Denver and Republican House Minority Leader Jarvis Caldwell of Monument, with active support from the Colorado Chamber of Commerce and the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association — typically opposing forces in business-litigation policy debates. The bill was scheduled for its first hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on April 29.

HB 1421 would prohibit Colorado law firms from entering arrangements with ABS-style structures relating to legal services, practicing in professional companies where non-lawyers own interests or direct lawyer judgment, or compensating any party where compensation depends on a percentage of legal fees or case recoveries. The bill would also empower courts to halt offending arrangements, order fee reimbursement to clients, and disgorge ABS profits derived from prohibited activities. The article specifically references Burford Capital's litigation funding presence in framing the bill's broader policy concern with non-lawyer financial stakes in legal outcomes.

The legislation lands at a moment when private equity ownership of legal services is expanding rapidly in jurisdictions that permit it — Arizona, Utah, and the District of Columbia — and where PE-backed national platforms are increasingly partnering with firms in non-ABS jurisdictions to extend their operating reach. The Colorado bill, if enacted, would cut against that expansion model by restricting how Colorado firms can collaborate with out-of-state, non-attorney-owned platforms.

For the litigation finance community, the bill is a meaningful data point. Although disclosure-based reform has dominated state-level TPLF debate in 2025-26, HB 1421 reflects a parallel and somewhat different policy thrust: not transparency about funding, but structural limits on the ownership and economic relationships that surround legal practice. The convergence of plaintiffs' bar and chamber-of-commerce support behind a single bill is itself rare, and may presage similar coalitions in other non-ABS states facing PE-driven consolidation pressure.

Commercial

Triple-I Tracks the State-Level Wave of Third-Party Litigation Funding Reform

By John Freund |

A new Triple-I research piece outlines the rapidly expanding state-level reform agenda targeting third-party litigation funding, with disclosure mandates, foreign-funder bans, and registration regimes advancing in legislatures across the country as federal action remains slower-moving.

According to Triple-I's Lewis Nibbelin, Georgia led the most consequential 2025 round of reform with legislation requiring litigation financiers to register with the Department of Banking and Finance and prohibiting funder influence over case outcomes — measures that Triple-I links to subsequent auto insurance rate reductions and dividends to Georgia drivers. Louisiana followed with its widely covered Department of Insurance partnership with the NICB and 4WARN to combat TPLF marketing tactics, alongside legislation requiring attorneys to disclose TPLF contracts within 30 days of retainer or funding execution.

Other states are moving in parallel. Mississippi's new law, effective July 1, mandates disclosure of foreign litigation funding to address concerns about exploitation by non-U.S. entities. Utah passed comparable restrictions in March 2026. Michigan's House committee bill — already covered in LFJ — would ban foreign TPLF entirely while requiring disclosure and registration of all funders. Missouri, Tennessee, and Ohio are advancing similar foreign-funding bans, with the Tennessee and Ohio bills already passing their respective state Houses.

The piece references a joint NICB/4WARN study quantifying the scale of the consumer-facing TPLF market: $380 million in online search advertising between June 2024 and June 2025, and 27.8 million clicks to TPLF websites in June 2025 alone. Triple-I cites broader tort cost figures from the Perryman Group and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse — including $35.8 billion in direct annual losses and roughly $600 per U.S. household — to frame the policy stakes.

Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple, quoted in the piece, framed the partnership as protecting citizens "from opportunists who manipulate the claims process to fuel excessive litigation, which is a primary driver of our high insurance costs." For commercial litigation funders, the rapid proliferation of state-level disclosure and foreign-funder-ban regimes represents a meaningful compliance overlay — particularly for cross-border deals and structured funding vehicles where investor identity, jurisdiction, and reporting timing now vary materially by state.

Commercial

Diamond Comic Distributors Bankruptcy Court Approves Counsel and JPMorgan Financing to Pursue Litigation Recoveries

By John Freund |

The bankruptcy court overseeing Diamond Comic Distributors has approved trustee Morgan W. Fisher's motion to retain litigation counsel and draw on debtor-in-possession financing from JPMorgan Chase to pursue litigation claims as part of the estate's strategy to generate creditor recoveries — a structure that places the case at the intersection of bankruptcy debt and litigation-driven monetization.

As reported by ICv2, the trustee identified litigation as one of three avenues for revenue generation in an estate that faces approximately $7 million in liabilities and limited operational capacity. The JPMorgan facility is positioned as DIP financing to fund both ongoing operations and the litigation effort, with court approval clearing the way for retained counsel to begin pursuing claims related to the estate.

The motion drew formal objections. The Ad Hoc Committee of Consignors argued the plan lacks a viable execution path, citing the estate's lack of employees, a lapsed insurance policy, and no clear mechanism to distribute the consigned inventory at the heart of the dispute. Alliance Entertainment filed separate objections earlier in the week, with detailed concerns about the structure's economics. The court nonetheless approved the trustee's request to proceed with retained counsel and the financing facility.

For the litigation finance community, the Diamond approval is a useful illustration of how bankruptcy estates increasingly turn to debt-financed litigation strategies to monetize claims that would otherwise sit dormant. While the JPMorgan facility is conventional DIP financing rather than third-party litigation funding in the dedicated TPLF sense, the structural logic — using outside capital to underwrite the cost of pursuing potentially valuable claims, with priority repayment on success — increasingly overlaps with TPLF in bankruptcy contexts.

The case also highlights a recurring tension in trustee-led litigation strategies. Where claim values are highly speculative and creditor classes have divergent interests, court-approved DIP-funded litigation can become a focal point for inter-creditor disputes — particularly when objectors argue, as here, that the estate lacks the operational infrastructure to execute on any litigation upside even if it materializes. As bankruptcy practitioners and TPLF providers continue to develop hybrid structures that combine DIP debt with success-fee or non-recourse capital, cases like Diamond are likely to inform how courts evaluate these arrangements going forward.