Trending Now
Commercial

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Digital Event: Legal Tech and LitFin

On December 6th, 2023, Litigation Finance Journal produced its final event of the year: Legal Tech and LitFin: How Will Tech Impact Litigation Finance Globally?

Tets Ishikawa moderated an insightful and pertinent discussion on the use of legal tech in the litigation finance industry. Panelists included Nick Rowles-Davies (NRD), Founder of Lexolent, Isabel Yang (IY), Founder of Arbilex, and Joshua Masia (JM), Co-Founder and CEO of Dealbridge.ai.

Below are some key takeaways from the event (answers have been truncated for the purpose of this article):

Legal tech is quite a broad term.  What does the legal tech landscape mean to you, and how does it fit into your business?

IY: We’re in a very exciting time in legal tech. Where I sit, I primarily deal with the underlying technology being artificial intelligence (AI). The primary advances in advanced AI have primarily occurred out of language being the source data. A lot of these text-based AI advancements all hold great significance for the practice of law.

At Arbilex, we are taking advantage of large language modeling (LLM) to reduce the cost of data acquisition. When we take court briefings and unstructured data and try to turn that into structured data, the cost of that process has dramatically decreased, because of Chat GPT and the latest LLMs.

On the flipside, because AI has become so advanced, a lot of off-the-shelf solutions have tended towards a black box solution. So the model’s output has become a more challenging task. At Arbilex, we have always focused on building the most stable AI—so we focus on how we can explain a particular prediction to our clients. We are increasingly investing a lot of our time and human capital into building that bridge between AI and that use case.

How relevant has legal tech been, and will it be, in the growth of the litigation finance sector? 

JM: When we look at scaling operational processes, a lot of times we have to put our traditional computer science hat on and ask, ‘how have we historically solved these problems and what has changed in the past several years to evolve this landscape?’

A lot of the emphasis with technology has been about normalizing and standardizing how we look at these data sets. There’s a big issue when you look at this approach and what existing platforms have been doing—this is a very human business. Because of that, there’s a lot of ad hoc requests that get mixed in. So what gen-AI is doing, we’re getting to a point where you don’t have to over-structure your sales or diligence process. Maybe the first few dozen questions you’re asking of a given data set are the same, but eventually we want to be able to ask questions that are specific to this deal. So being able to call audibles and ad-hoc analysis of data sets was really hard to do before the addition of generative AI.

NRD: Legal tech is becoming increasingly relevant, but the real effect and usefulness has grown over time. It makes repetitive tasks easier, and provides insights that are not always readily apparent. But in terms of the specific use of AI to triage outcoming matters, we identify matters in different areas—is this something we simply aren’t going to assess, will it be sent back for further information, does it fit the bucket of something we would fund per our original mandate, or does it go on the platform for the purpose of others to look at and invest in that particular matter.

AI is having an increasing impact and is being used with more regularity by litigation funders who are funding they can increase efficiency and get to a ‘yes’ much more quickly.

A lot of lawyers would say, this is fascinating, but ultimately this is a human industry. Every circumstance will be different, because they will come down to the behaviors of human beings in that time. Is there a way that AI can capture behavioral dynamics?

IY: In general, we need to have realistic expectations of AI. That comes from, what humans are uniquely good at are not necessarily the things that AI is good at. AI is really good at pattern-spotting. Meaning, if I train the model to look for recurring features of particular cases—say, specific judges in specific jurisdictions, when coming up against a specific type of argument or case—then AI in general has a very good ability to assign the weighting to a particular attribute in a way that humans instinctively can come to the same place, you can’t really quantify the impact or magnitude of a specific attribute.

The other thing that we need to be realistic about, is that cases are decided not just on pattern, but on case-specific fact attributes (credibility of a witness, availability of key evidence). If you train AI to look for things that are so specific to one case, you end up overfitting the model, meaning your AI is so good at looking for one specific variable, that it loses it general predictive power over a large pool of cases.

What I would caution attorneys, is use AI to get a second opinion on things you believe are a pattern. In arbitration, attorneys might use AI on tribunal matters—tribunal composition. AI models are way better at honing in on patterns—but things like ‘do we want to produce this witness vs. another witness,’ that is not something we should expect AI to predict.

For the full panel discussion, please click here.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Law Firm Corner Special Features Thought Leadership

Should Courts Encourage Litigation Funding?

By Ken Rosen |

The following was contributed by Ken Rosen Esq, Founder of Ken Rosen P.C. Ken is a frequent contributor to legal journals on current topics of interest to the bankruptcy and restructuring industry.

In many Chapter 11 cases, the debtor’s estate holds valuable litigation claims, which can be a key source of recovery. However, pursuing these claims can be daunting when the defendant has substantially greater financial resources. Well-funded defendants may use aggressive litigation tactics to exploit the estate’s limited means.

Unsecured creditors, often receiving only token recoveries, may be hesitant to approve further legal spending. Debtor’s counsel, wary of nonpayment if litigation fails, may also be reluctant to pursue claims. Contingency fee arrangements can reduce estate risk, but they shift risk to counsel—particularly when facing a resource-rich defendant.

To gain creditor support, more than the committee counsel’s confidence may be needed. Litigation funding can bridge the gap. It provides capital to pursue claims without draining estate resources, helping to fulfill Chapter 11’s core goals: preserving going concern value and maximizing creditor recovery, as recognized by the Supreme Court.

Litigation funding is especially valuable when the estate lacks liquidity. It enables the debtor to pursue meritorious claims against stronger opponents, discouraging defense strategies aimed at exhausting the plaintiff through expensive discovery and motion practice.

The Funder’s Evaluation Process:

  1. Legal Merits – Assessing the strength of claims based on facts, evidence, and precedent.
  2. Recovery Potential – Estimating damages or settlement value to ensure adequate return.
  3. Litigation Costs – Forecasting expenses to trial or resolution.
  4. Risk Analysis – Evaluating the defendant’s ability to pay, jurisdictional issues, and delays.
  5. Independent Review –Funders conduct rigorous due diligence before committing capital.

A funder’s involvement serves as a “second opinion” validating the case. Their willingness to invest can bolster confidence in the claim’s merits and justify some estate contribution. It can serve as a soft endorsement of the litigation’s potential value. When a party seeks authorization for litigation funding it should be viewed by the Bankruptcy Court as weighing in favor of approval.

Whether or not funding is obtained, the terms of any arrangement should be redacted/sealed and remain confidential—shared only with the Court and key constituent counsel. The rationale for proceeding without funding should likewise remain undisclosed. Keeping defense counsel in the dark preserves strategic advantage.

Conclusion:

Litigation funding can be a powerful tool for Chapter 11 estates, enabling pursuit of valuable claims, minimizing financial strain, and supporting reorganization efforts. This strategy aligns with Chapter 11’s purpose and can significantly enhance the likelihood of a successful outcome. Key constituents and the court should recognize that.

Commercial Deals

Ramco’s Cristina Soler on the Benefits of Monetizing Arbitration Awards

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered yesterday, the availability of legal funding is having a significant impact on the world of arbitration, with funders offering a variety of services from financing the initial claim to supporting claimants through the enforcement of awards.

In an interview with Confilegal, Cristina Soler, CEO of Ramco Litigation Funding, discusses the growing use of award monetization in arbitral proceedings and the increasing adoption of litigation funding both in Spain and across Europe. Confilegal spoke with Soler at the 11th edition of the Open de Arbitraje in Madrid, where she participated in a panel discussion with Emma Morales (Simmons & Simmons), Damian Vallejo (Dunning Rievaman & Macdonald LLP), Carlos Iso (SACYR). Lourdes Martínez de Victoria Gómez (Departamento de Arbitrajes Internacionales), and María Rodríguez (ACCIONA).

In the interview, Soler highlights that the end of any arbitration proceedings is never marked simply with a party obtaining an award, as the enforcement of that award is often a long and expensive process. Soler explains that funders like Ramco can provide support in one of two ways: either by providing the financing to cover the legal costs of enforcement, or through the monetization of an award where it is sold or assigned to the funder for an upfront payment.

Soler emphasises that the main benefits of award monetization are the immediate provision of liquidity to the claimant and the mitigation of any risk involved in the complex enforcement process. She also goes on to explain that award monetization has become more sophisticated with different payment structures available and a growing secondary market where these awards are bought and sold.

More insights from Soler are available in the full interview on Confilegal’s website.

Commercial Legal Innovation

JurisTrade CEO Discusses Litigation Asset Marketplace Opportunities

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered in March of this year, JurisTrade launched the first phase of its Litigation Asset Marketplace offering over $70 million in litigation funding opportunities, with the aim of bridging the gap between available capital and active cases in need of financing.

In an interview with Global Finance, JurisTrade’s CEO, James Koutoulas discusses the company’s new marketplace, explaining the benefits it offers to both investors and plaintiffs who find themselves in need of additional funding during a case. 

Koutoulas describes the platform as “the first secondary marketplace for litigation assets”, with the marketplace designed to allow investors to buy and sell these opportunities just like tradeable securities. Koutoulas says that this will generate “two or three turns on these cases”, with the flexibility of this model allowing “investors to pick when they want to come in, like VC investors pick the A-round or C-round.”

Koutoulas also clarifies that the marketplace is not targeting retail investors, as the minimum stake is set at $500,000. Instead JurisTrade’s platform is focused on offering these opportunities to institutional investors and family offices, highlighting that due to the variety of cases “every investment is very bespoke.”