Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Town Hall on How Litigation Funders Should Respond to the UK Supreme Court Ruling

August 11, 2023

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Town Hall on How Litigation Funders Should Respond to the UK Supreme Court Ruling

Wednesday, August 9th, LFJ hosted a panel of UK-based litigation funding experts who discussed the recent UK Supreme Court decision, and the potential impacts on the funding industry. The expert panel included: Nick Rowles-Davies (NRD), Founder of Lexolent, Neil Johnstone (NJ), Barrister at King’s Bench Chambers, and Tets Ishikawa (TI), Managing Director at LionFish. The panel was moderated by Peter Petyt (PP), Founder and CEO of 4 Rivers Services. PP: How does this ruling impact the enforceability of LFAs in current, ongoing cases?  And what about LFAs from previously funded and concluded cases?   NRD:  It has a pretty big impact.  First of all, the existing arrangements between clients and litigation funders are going to come under scrutiny, because the lawyers acting for clients are going to have to review their positions. This is not a decision which is making new law, this is a statement of existing law as it has always been, so that review will have to be dealt in the light of the decision. The bigger impact is going to be on concluded cases. That may cause some difficulties. I’m already hearing that there are ongoing discussions on matters that have already concluded, where an agreement that provided for a percentage to be paid to the funder is now being discussed as to whether it should have been paid. That is going to be a distraction, it is going to be an ongoing issue, and I suspect that there will be opportunistic attempts on the part of defendants, in terms of challenging existing litigation funding agreements. So how that concludes, one can only guess, but the reality is, it’s a distraction and disruption, and will be an ongoing issue. PP: Tets, you’re running a fund. You’ve concluded agreements, you’ve got ongoing agreements. How are you proposing to deal with all of this?  TI: Ultimately we are in the business of funding litigation cases, so the world goes on. We can’t stop doing it just on the basis of what may be a speculative risk. What we’re trying to understand here, is the key risks we have. In terms of our book, we don’t have any percentage share of the awards, in relation to proceedings in the CAT. So we’re safe in that regard. But in terms of enforceability, there are some agreements that we’ve had to refute. But obviously, that’s a commercial conversation, and the reality is, people are generally appreciative that they’ve got funding, not ungrateful, so there’s a lot of cooperation. I agree with Nick that generally speaking, the ongoing cases and cases going forward are more manageable. The big distraction will be the concluded cases. My position is slightly more nuanced than Nick’s, in that I think it is a distraction, but I think it’s going to be far less of a risk, partly because the reality is that a lot of funding agreements are entered into in the first place with the purpose of helping claimants that are impecunious. If the claimants have got damages out of it, they are certainly very grateful. Granted, there are some who may not have gotten as much as they wanted because of funding arrangements. But there is the fact that they’ve gone through a very long litigation process. If it was all about money, then some might very well pursue that course of action. But the reality is, most will think twice about going after a funder, and if they do, the chances are that they’ll probably need funding anyway. So if they have to go back to funders, only funders with no interest or claims or willingness to back the industry in the UK would fund those claims. So I think it’s more of a distraction than a real risk. PP: Do you see any consolidation or direct impacts on the consolidation piece, from this judgement?  NJ: I suspect there will be anyway. This comes at a time that is difficult for all funders given the larger macro-environment. This comes at unfortunate timing. However, the hardest knives are forged in the hottest fires. I do think you will see not just consolidation within the industry, but funders looking at where they can best add value, such as portfolio funding or other strategies, so they have a proper niche within the market. Overall, it’s not terminal for the industry by any stretch. It is a bump in the road that is inherent in any growing industry. But I do think that regulatory clarity would help the industry a lot. There is a lot of useful ammunition for ILFA in Lady Rose’s dissenting judgement and in previous judicial comments making well-worded judicial criticism of the legislative patchwork we have in the UK. And I think there could be a very good argument to put forth to a government that I hope could be sympathetic to wishing this industry continues. London is a legal and financial capital of the world, and this industry sits at that nexus. So long term, there is nothing to particularly worry about. To listen to the full panel discussion, please click here.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Siltstone vs. Walia Dispute Moves to Arbitration

By John Freund |

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.

Case Developments Commercial

ASB Agrees to NZ$135.6M Settlement in Banking Class Action

By John Freund |

ASB has confirmed it will pay NZ$135,625,000 to resolve the Banking Class Action focused on alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), subject to approval by the High Court. The settlement was announced October 7, 2025, but ASB did not admit liability as part of the deal.

1News reports that the class action—covering both ASB and ANZ customers—alleges that the banks failed to provide proper disclosure to borrowers during loan variations. As a result, during periods of non‑compliance, customers claim the banks were not entitled to collect interest and fees (under CCCFA sections 22, 99, and 48).

The litigation has been jointly funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF Group (New Zealand). The parallel claim against ANZ remains active and is not part of ASB’s settlement.

Prior to this announcement, plaintiffs had publicly floated a more ambitious settlement in the NZ$300m+ range, which both ASB and ANZ had rejected—labeling it a “stunt” or political gambit tied to ongoing legislative changes to CCCFA.

Legal and regulatory observers see this deal as a strategic move by ASB: it caps its exposure and limits litigation risk without conceding wrongdoing, while leaving open the possibility of continued proceedings against ANZ. The arrangement still requires High Court consent before going ahead.

Commercial

What’s the Smartest Growth Strategy for Law Firms in 2025? Client Service

By Kris Altiere |

The following article was contributed by Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing for Moneypenny.

The legal sector is already operating against a backdrop of economic unpredictability, rising client expectations, and fast-moving advances in technology. For firms of all sizes, but especially small and mid-sized practices, the pressing question is: what’s the smartest and most sustainable path to growth?

The answer isn’t a new practice management system or a radical shift in service lines. It’s something more fundamental yet far more powerful: client service.

And not the kind that gets lost in endless phone menus or delegated to faceless chatbots. We’re talking about human-led, AI-supported service that’s fast, personal, and friction-free. In today’s legal market, client service isn’t just an operational necessity. It’s a growth strategy.

Trust as the new currency of growth

Clients navigating complex legal challenges are often anxious, risk-averse, and under pressure. In that environment, trust becomes the currency that drives engagement and retention.

It’s no longer enough for firms to offer technically sound legal advice at competitive rates. Clients want to feel heard, supported, and valued throughout their journey. Firms that can embed this into every interaction, whether it’s the initial consultation or a late-night update, are the ones that win loyalty, referrals, and long-term revenue.

This plays to the strengths of small and mid-sized firms. With leaner teams and flatter hierarchies, they’re often more agile and capable of delivering the personal, tailored support clients crave. A partner who picks up the phone, knows the client’s name, and understands the case context instantly builds credibility. In 2025, that credibility is the bridge between staying relevant and achieving meaningful growth.

Smart tech, human empathy

Yes, AI is everywhere. But the firms using it most effectively are those that integrate it where it adds real value while also keeping the human touch where it matters most.

AI can streamline administrative work, speed up intake, and automate repetitive tasks like document review or appointment scheduling. But it can’t replace the reassurance of a lawyer who listens carefully to a client in distress, or the receptionist who ensures urgent calls are routed to the right person immediately.

The winning formula is balance: let AI handle the heavy lifting, while people deliver the moments that build trust. Imagine a litigation funder using AI to flag cases requiring immediate attention, while a trained case manager provides the nuanced support clients need. Or a family law practice using chatbots for document collection but ensuring sensitive discussions are handled by a real lawyer with empathy and tact.

That combination of efficiency plus empathy is what cuts through the noise.

Service as a growth engine

When client service is done well in law firms, it doesn’t just fix problems it drives growth. Every answered call, prompt update, or thoughtful follow-up is a touchpoint that builds brand equity and deepens relationships. 

Great client service is about being reactive, for example, answering questions, but also it is about being proactive, through spotting patterns, identifying sales opportunities, and deepening client relationships. Your service team becomes a source of insight and influence. And often, they’re the difference between a one-time transaction and long-term loyalty.

Take funding conversations as an example. A firm that keeps clients informed on timelines, explains financing options clearly, and checks in regularly is positioning itself not just as a legal advisor but as a trusted partner. That kind of proactive, client-focused service often creates opportunities for cross-referrals and repeat work.

And thanks to modular, scalable tools—from virtual receptionist to live chat—these capabilities are no longer exclusive to the Am Law 100. Boutique firms and regional practices now have access to the same client service infrastructure as the industry’s largest players.

Connection builds resilience

With margins tight and competition fierce, the strongest legal practices in 2025 will be those that build loyalty through connection. That doesn’t mean over-promising or relying on outdated customer care models. It means meeting people where they are, and offering support that’s proactive, consistent and personal.

It also means supporting teams. When lawyers and staff are backed by smart systems that free them to focus on meaningful work, morale improves. And in a small or mid-sized firm, morale directly fuels performance.

Client service is where growth, loyalty and operational resilience meet. For practices looking to thrive this year, the message is clear: don’t see service as a back-office function. See it as a growth engine, a brand differentiator, and one of the most valuable assets a law firm has.

Because in a market full of uncertainty, the one thing that’s certain is this: customers will always remember how you made them feel. And that feeling might just be the difference between surviving and scaling.