Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on AI & Technology

By John Freund |

On Thursday, February 27th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall on AI and legal technology. The panel discussion featured Erik Bomans (EB), CEO of Deminor Recovery Services, Stewart Ackerly (SA), Director at Statera Capital, David Harper (DH), co-founder and CEO of Legal Intelligence, and Patrick Ip (PI), co-founder of Theo AI. The panel was hosted by Ted Farrell, founder of Litigation Funding Advisers.

Below are some key takeaways from the discussion:

Everyone reads about AI every day and how it’s disrupting this industry, being used here and being used there. So what I wanted to ask you all to talk about what is the use case for AI, specific to the litigation finance business?

PI: There are a couple of core use cases on our end that we hear folks use it for. One is a complementary approach to underwriting. So initial gut take as to what are potentially the case killers. So should I actually invest time in human underwriting to look at this case?

The second use case is a last check. So before we’re actually going into fund, obviously cases are fluid. They’re ever-evolving. They’re changing. So between the first pass and the last check, has anything changed that would stop us from actually doing the funding? And then the third more novel approach that we’ve gotten a lot of feedback

There are 270,000 new lawsuits filed a day. Generally speaking, in order to understand if this lawsuit has any merit, you have to read through all the cases. It’s very time consuming to do. Directionally, as an application, as an AI application, We can comb through all those documents. We can read all those emails. We can look through social and digest public information to say, hey, these are the cases that actually are most relevant to your fund. Instead of looking through 50 or 100 of these, these are the top 10 most relevant ones. And we send those to clients on a weekly basis. Interesting.

I don’t want you to give up your proprietary special sauce, but how are you all trying to leverage these tools to aid you and deliver the kind of returns that LPs want to see?

SA: We can make the most effective use of AI or other technologies – whether it’s at the very top of the funnel and what’s coming into the funnel, or whether it’s deeper down into the funnel of a case that we like – is that we try to find a way to leverage AI to complement our underwriting. We think about it a lot on the origination side just making us more efficient, letting us be able to sift through a larger number of cases more quickly and as effectively as if we had bodies to look through them all, but also to help us just find more cases that may be a potential fit.

In terms of kind of the data sources that you rely on. I think a question we always think about, especially for kind of early stage cases is, is there enough data available? For example, if there’s just a complaint on file, is that going to give you enough for AI to give you a meaningful result?

I think most of the people on this call would tell you duration is in a lot of ways the biggest risk that funders take. So what specific pieces of these cases is AI helping you drill down into, and how are you harnessing the leverage you can access with these tools?

DH: We, 18 months ago or so, in the beginning of our journey on this use case in law, were asked by a very, very big and very well respected personal injury business in the UK to help them make sense of 37,000 client files that they’d settled with insurers on non-fault motor accident.

And we ran some modeling. We created some data scientist assets, which were AI assets. And their view was, if we had more resources, we would do more of the following things. But we’re limited by the amount of people we’ve got and the amount we get per file to spend on delivering that file. So we developed some AI assets to investigate the nearly 40,000 cases, what the insurers across different jurisdictions and different circumstances settled on.

And we, in partnership with them, improved their settlement value by 8%. The impact that had on their EBITDA, etc. That’s on a firm level, right? That’s on a user case where a firm is actually using AI to perform a science task on their data to give them better predictive analysis. Because lawyers were erring on the side of caution. they would go on a lowball offer because of the impact of getting that wrong if it went to court after settlement. So I think for us, our conversations with financiers and law firms, alignment is key, right? So a funder wants to protect their capital and time – the longer things take, the longer your capital’s out, the potential lower returns.

AI can offer a lot of solutions for very specific problems and can be very useful and can reduce the cost of analyzing these cases, but predictive outcome analysis requires a lot of data. And so the problem is, where do you get the data from and how good is the data? How unstructured or structured are the data sets?

I think getting access to the data is one issue. The other one is the quality of the data, of course, that you put into the machine. If you put bad data in a machine, you might get some correlations, but what’s the relevance, right? And that’s the problem that we are facing.

So many cases are settled, you don’t know the outcome. And that’s why you still need the human component. We need doctors to train computers to analyze medical images. We need lawyers and people with litigation experience who can tell a computer whether this is a good case, whether this is a good settlement or a bad settlement. And in the end, if you don’t know it because it’s confidential, someone has to make a call on that. I’m afraid that’s what we have to do, right? Even one litigation fund or several litigation funders are not going to have enough data with settlements on the same type of claim to build a predictive analytical model on it.

And so you need to get massive amounts of data where some human elements, some coding is still going to be required, manual coding. And I think that’s a process that we’re going to have to go through.

You can view the full panel discussion here.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Scott Davis, Partner, Klarquist

By John Freund |

Scott focuses on intellectual property litigation, representing clients in courts throughout the U.S. He has had great success both obtaining relief for intellectual property owners and defending suits in a wide range of technical fields in cases involving patent, trade secret, unfair competition, employment agreement, copyright, DMCA, trademark, trade dress, product configuration, and false advertising claims.

Scott has litigated cases involving chemical, mechanical, medical device, internet, software, encryption, computer, clean energy, automotive, apparel, food, agricultural, and pharmaceutical technologies. Representing some of the largest companies in the world as well as smaller businesses and start-ups, he has succeeded for clients such as Adobe, British Airways, Columbia River Knife & Tool, Capsugel, Costco, Danner, DexCom, Intuit, Microsoft, Nightforce, Phibro Animal Health Corporation, SAP, SunModo, and Yelp.

Describing his past success and approach with the Klarquist litigation team, IAM Patent 1000 recently lauded Scott’s ability to assess the best strategies and his talent for understanding and simplifying complex technology, and noted that Scott will “always put your objectives first and act like a part of your team.”

Company Name and Description: Klarquist is a full-service intellectual property (IP) law firm with services including IP counseling, patents, trademarks, copyrights, litigation, and post-grant USPTO proceedings. Because we focus our practice exclusively on intellectual property, our prosecution professionals leverage a thorough understanding of our clients’ cutting-edge technology to an extent not seen in general practice firms. Our technical expertise covers biotechnology, physics and optics, chemistry, electrical and mechanical engineering, software and computer science, plants, and semiconductors.

Klarquist is one of the oldest and largest intellectual property law firms in the Pacific Northwest. For more than 80 years, the firm has provided intellectual property legal services to innovators of all stripes and sizes. The firm has over 60 attorneys and patent agents, more than 90% of whom hold technical degrees and many with doctorates in their respective fields. Klarquist professionals are adept at handling all phases of intellectual property matters, from procurement to transfer to litigation of disputes and post-grant review proceedings. Our roster of clients includes some of the most innovative companies and institutions in the world, from Amazon and Microsoft to the U.S. Government, which chooses Klarquist to procure its patents more than any other firm in the nation. As a full-service intellectual property boutique, Klarquist is uniquely equipped to handle any matter, for any innovator, in virtually every area of modern technology.

Website: www.klarquist.com

Year Founded: 1941

Headquarters: Portland, Oregon

Areas of Interest: Dispute resolution, litigation, and patent post grant proceedings.

Member Quote: "Litigation funding provides a key to unlock access to civil justice."

Case Developments Commercial

$170 Million Settlement Approved in Allianz Class Action

By Harry Moran |

A complex Australian class action that emerged through the consolidation of two separate group proceedings has reached a successful conclusion, with the court approving a large settlement and thereby marking a significant win for the litigation funder who backed the case. 

A post on LinkedIn from Balance Legal Capital highlighted the approval of the settlement in the Allianz class action, with the Supreme Court of Victoria approving the A$170 million sum to bring the group proceedings to a close. The class action, which Balance Legal Capital funded, was brought on behalf of over 200,000 Australian customers who purchased a vehicle and were then sold Allianz or Allianz Life “add-on” insurance products by the dealership, alleging that the insurers engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.

Johnson Winter Slattery (JWS) and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers jointly represented the plaintiffs in the class action. In 2021, the Court had ordered the consolidation of this group proceeding with a similar class action against Allianz, resulting in two representative plaintiffs: Ms Tracy-Ann Fuller and Mr Wilkinson.

The judgment approving the proposed settlement was made today, with the court approving a $30,000 payment to the two plaintiffs. The court also maintained the Group Costs Order (GCO) of 25% of the settlement, with a $42.5 million payment set to be divided between JWS and Maurice Blackburn, with a further sum of up to $4.72 million allocated to Maurice Blackburn for the administering of the settlement distribution scheme. 

On the costs incurred by the law firms, Justice Matthews wrote that they were, “satisfied that the costs are reasonable and proportionate to the issues in dispute and the overall amount in dispute.” The judge went on to highlight that the class action “was a very large and complex proceeding and it is unsurprising that the costs are substantial.”

The full judgment and settlement approval orders can be read here. More information about the case can be found on the Allianz Class Action website.

Case Developments Commercial

Judge Halves Funder’s Legal Costs in Mastercard Case

By Harry Moran |

The dispute between Walter Merricks and Innsworth Capital in the Mastercard claim has been one of the most visible examples of a rift between a class representative and litigation funder. 

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an update on the ongoing fallout from the settlement in the Mastercard litigation, as the acting president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has described the funder’s legal costs of over £52,000 as “wholly disproportionate and unreasonable”. These comments came in a ruling on costs that Mr Justice Roth had ordered the class representative to pay, relating to the funder’s legal costs for responding to Mr Merricks’ application for a court order (‘Documents Application) that would have prevented the funder from using confidential documents in its intervention.

In his assessment of Innsworth’s submissions on costs, the judge accepted that the funder’s need to oppose the Documents Application was “critical to its ability to participate effectively in opposing the CSAO Application” and went on to say that he had “no criticism of the time spent by the solicitors.” However, Justice Roth did highlight the decision to instruct “both leading and junior counsel to advise on the response” and the fact that in this matter, “Akin Gump is charging at well over double, and in the case of the Grade B solicitor almost three times, the London 1 Guideline Rates.”

The ruling goes on to note that whilst Innsworth “may choose to agree with its solicitors to pay a much higher rate of fees”, it does not automatically follow “that costs incurred at those rates are recoverable from the other side”. Determining the final costs, Justice Roth settled on a reduction of the solicitors’ fees down from £26,355.50 to £12,000, and similarly reduced the counsel fees to £10,000, which he still described as “generous”. As a result, the final sum for Innsworth’s costs was set at £22,000.

The full ruling from Mr Justice Roth can be read here.