Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Podcast with Steve Shinn

December 13, 2021

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Podcast with Steve Shinn

On the latest episode of the LFJ Podcast, Steven Shinn, founder of FinLegal, described the solutions his platform provides for both funders and lawyers, and explains his company’s points of differentiation with other third party platform providers.

Q: Why move into litigation funding and after-the-event insurance? Can you explain how FinLegal’s offerings are different than those of traditional funders?

A: Absolutely. I think one of the challenges is that the litigation funding market could grow a great deal. But there are challenges where lawyers don’t necessarily understand litigation funding, and there are a lot more funders that you can go to. So you want to help educate people who are new to litigation funding and ATE about how to access it and how it works.

There are more funders joining, which is increasing the number of claims that get funded. So whereas before you might have only had funders looking to deploy $5 million to a claim, you now find situations where there are funders who want to deploy as little as $100,000 or less. So there’s a much broader range of funders…and it’s hard to go to all of them individually and it’s hard to know who’s in the market.

We thought, let’s build a sticky platform which provides the law firm with visibility and control over those funding requests, and let’s give them an online process (to write the best possible funding request) in terms of how it’s positioned to the funders so that it does get funding. With lots of funders to navigate, let’s build a platform to help lawyers navigate them, help them understand it—and let’s help them put forward the request with the best possible positioning.

Q: You mentioned getting involved in group actions (the UK version of US-style class actions). What got you interested in that space particularly, and does your technology background in any way penetrate that space?

A: Definitely. It started out as me seeing the VW group claim, and also seeing cartel claims, price-fixing on football shirts, and things like this. With my technology background, I thought ‘Well, how are law firms doing this?’

I saw that they had a lot of off-line case management platforms, they use a lot of spreadsheets. You know these systems didn’t talk to each other. There’s a lot of manual effort and no mobile interfaces for claimants to interact with the law firm. So I thought, ‘We can build a platform that will enable that.’ Essentially, we’d be taking a completely fresh look at it. With a technology and software development background and a product development background. How do we build/provide something that enables lawyers to spend the least time possible working with each claim. We know that’s important to the economics of the claim—not having to spend a lot of manual effort on each claim.

So that’s what we produced, a solution that works on a management by exception basis, so essentially the claimant goes through an automated set of steps. And where they fall out of those steps or where they don’t meet certain criteria, only then do they need to get picked up by the law firm.

Q: I know you offer a claim automation solution, can you explain what this solution does?

A: The main benefit of the solution is that it increases the volume of clients. So what you tend to find, is if there’s a bad claimant experience, people fall out of the process. You’ve spent money on acquiring that claimant, you spend advertising pounds or dollars to get them into your funnel, to start working with them. But they become disenfranchised from your process, right? Or they don’t like getting a lot of phone calls, or they feel like the process is insecure and it happens via Email without clear instruction. So if you have a good online process, it increases the volume of clients. That’s the first thing.

And it reduces the amount of time spent per client also, because…the law firm is only working with clients who fall out of the automated process. It’s also plug-n-play, so if you want to start work on a new type of matter it might be that this week you’re building a book of emissions claimants, and the following week you want to launch a shareholder claim.

You can launch that from the platform in a matter of days and start book building. You’re not having to have lots of different contractors and different systems that you have to modify to start doing something new or different. You talk to us, we set it up for you, and then you manage it through an interface that you’re very familiar with.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Leading Claims Firm Calls for Blanket Ban on Car Finance Claim Adverts

The law firm holding the largest book of UK motor finance claims has called for a temporary blanket ban on all advertising for such claims, arguing that duplicate representation must be resolved before consumers are marketed to further.

As reported by Legal Futures, Courmacs Legal — a North-West firm acting for 1.6 million clients across four million claims — wants the duplicate claims problem fixed first. The Financial Conduct Authority estimates that more than a million complaints have multiple representatives, with instances of consumers signing the same claim with as many as 20 different representatives. Those consumers risk incurring multiple termination fees. Courmacs stopped its own marketing a year ago.

The firm also called on the joint taskforce on motor finance claims — comprising the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the FCA, the Advertising Standards Authority and the newly renamed Information Commission — to examine the FCA's own advertising posture, noting that regulator representatives "made public statements threatening to pull its redress scheme while also still advertising to consumers that they must trust in the redress scheme."

Speaking at the Claims Futures conference, managing director Darren Smith said the taskforce "is absolutely right to have been cracking down on aggressive practices and poor handling of motor finance claims," but that "more drastic action is needed immediately if the industry can be seen as trustworthy, transparent and truly putting the consumer's interest first." He urged other firms to support the ban and proposed a roundtable involving the FCA, SRA, consumer organisations and industry.

An FCA spokesman said: "We are defending our scheme as the best way to compensate consumers. Whatever the outcome of the legal challenges, consumers' complaints would still need to be dealt with."

Commercial

UK Class Actions Now Count Three-Quarters of a Billion Members

Class actions before the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal counted more than 750 million members by the end of last year, an increase of 80 million over the prior twelve months, with a cumulative claimed value exceeding £151 billion.

As reported by Legal Futures, research from law firm CMS found the total value rose by almost £17 billion on 2024. The composition has also shifted: opt-out claims now account for £85.6 billion against £65.6 billion for opt-in actions, reversing the previous pattern in which opt-in claims made up the majority. Membership has climbed steadily, from 560 million in 2023 to 671 million in 2024 and 752 million last year.

For the first time, big tech is the most exposed defendant sector, surpassing the stated value of the Mariana Dam litigation by approximately £8 billion. Natural resources and energy, financial products and automotive follow. CMS expects the trend to continue and to generate new claim categories, including social media addiction and claims relating to artificial intelligence.

The European Class Action Report 2026 recorded 38 UK claims issued last year, recovering from 33 in 2024. The report describes the UK as "one of the highest, if not the highest, risk jurisdictions in Europe," citing a well-developed claimant bar with close ties to US plaintiff firms, broad disclosure rules, "a sophisticated litigation funding market" and procedural mechanisms that facilitate class actions.

The UK accounted for 36% of European class actions last year, more than double its nearest rival Portugal. Italy followed at 12%, then Austria and the Netherlands. Competition claims remain the most common category, alongside a clear increase in product liability and personal injury filings.

Commercial

More Than 20 States Now Regulate Litigation Funding, Triple-I Reports

The regulatory map for third-party litigation funding has shifted decisively toward disclosure, with more than 20 states now requiring some form of transparency around outside capital in litigation. With the state-level picture largely settled, attention is turning to the federal courts.

As reported by Insurance Business, a new issues brief from the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) documents the pace of legislative activity. "Litigation funding has operated in the shadows for too long," said Triple-I CEO Sean Kevelighan, adding that "transparency in litigation funding is the logical next step."

North Carolina's HB 315 is the most restrictive measure enacted to date, banning litigation investment outright and carrying civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation. Other 2026 laws — Ohio HB 105, Mississippi SB 2747, Tennessee HB 2108 and Utah HB 280 — focus on registration and disclosure requirements, restrictions on foreign funding, and limits on funder control over litigation decisions.

Federal action has been slower. The Litigation Funding Transparency Act was introduced in February but has not advanced. In March, the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice petitioned the Federal Civil Rules Advisory Committee for a uniform disclosure standard, drawing support from more than 200 major US companies, including dozens of insurers. The request may be taken up at the committee's October 21 meeting. The Western District of Louisiana introduced a standing order in September, though most federal judges continue to decide disclosure case by case.

Triple-I and the Casualty Actuarial Society estimate legal system abuse added between $231.6 billion and $281.2 billion to liability insurance losses over the past decade. Swiss Re puts the global litigation funding market at roughly $17 billion, projected to reach $31 billion by 2028.