Trending Now
  • La financiación de las acciones colectivas en el punto de mira
  • Funding of collective actions under the spotlight

Law In Order Introduces Ground-Breaking eBundle Solution, Powered by Lexel’s GenAI Technology

Law In Order Introduces Ground-Breaking eBundle Solution, Powered by Lexel’s GenAI Technology

Law In Order, the leading provider of comprehensive document and digital solutions for the legal industry and government, is proud to announce the launch of its latest eBundle solution, utilising Lexel’s latest innovation GenAI technology. This revolutionary integration marks a significant advancement in legal technology, offering enhanced efficiency, intelligence, and collaboration for legal professionals across Australia, Asia, and the Middle East.

The new eBundle solution harnesses the power of Lexel’s GenAI capabilities to streamline evidence management and digital bundle preparation for eHearings. GenAI brings advanced generative AI functionality that provides deep contextual intelligence on case materials, enabling lawyers and legal teams to process and analyse evidence faster, with greater accuracy and insight.

For nearly a decade, Law In Order has worked closely with LegalCraft, the creators of Lexel, to bring unparalleled technology solutions to legal professionals. This new initiative further solidifies the partnership, as both companies strive to push the boundaries of what legal tech can achieve.

Rey Penalosa, Law In Order’s Head of eHearings: “The integration of Lexel’s GenAI into our eBundle solution is a game changer. We’re excited to offer our clients an ‘All in One, integrated’ tool that not only simplifies the preparation process but also enhances their ability to present cases with precision. This collaboration strengthens our commitment to delivering the most innovative legal technology solutions to the market.” 

Vamsi Madiraju, Chief Operating Officer at LegalCraft, added, “Australia has always embraced Lexel technology, and it’s the perfect market for us to launch GenAI. Law In Order has been an integral partner for us in this journey, and we are thrilled to collaborate with them on this exciting new offering. The integration of GenAI into Law In Order’s eBundle solution will empower legal teams with unprecedented capabilities.”

About Law In Order 

Law In Order is a leading provider of end-to-end document and digital solutions, specialising in document production, eDiscovery management, and specialist court services. With a strong focus on innovation, the company is dedicated to empowering legal professionals with the tools and expertise they need to excel.

About LegalCraft 

LegalCraft is the creator of Lexel, a leading evidence management platform used by legal professionals globally. Lexel’s GenAI capabilities enhance legal workflows by providing AI-driven contextual intelligence on case materials, improving efficiency and accuracy in evidence management.

Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All

Inside India’s Insolvency Regime

By John Freund |

A new joint study by the Insolvency Law Academy and Burford Capital sheds light on how legal finance is gaining traction as a strategic tool in the India's insolvency processes. By enabling distressed entities and professionals to monetize contingent assets without exhausting limited estate resources, legal finance has the power to enhance liquidity and improve recovery outcomes for creditors.

An article by Burford Capital unveils how legal finance-backed structures can convert contingent claims into tangible value, supporting corporate continuity and delivering stronger creditor returns. The study highlights India’s unique factors: abundant untapped recoveries from avoidance claims and disputed receivables, widespread capital shortages faced by insolvency professionals, and the need for prompt liquidity solutions. It also references real-world case studies showcasing how legal finance facilitated strategic wins for firms like Hindustan Construction Company and Patel Engineering.

On the regulatory front, judicial rulings—such as in Tomorrow Sales v. SBS Holdings (2023)—have explicitly recognized the legitimacy of legal finance in India’s litigation ecosystem. Meanwhile, updates to the IBC now permit the assignment of “not readily reali[z]able assets” during liquidation, laying groundwork for integrating legal finance into the insolvency framework. Nonetheless, the regulatory landscape—including aspects of FEMA compliance and fund repatriation—remains cautiously permissive.

Emerging operational structures include direct estate financing, SPV‑based claim ring‑fencing, and creditor assignments for immediate value. The report urges a “light‑touch” regulatory approach, alongside the development of codes of conduct and educational efforts to arm insolvency professionals and creditors with the know‑how to deploy legal finance effectively.

Looking ahead, as India’s insolvency infrastructure matures, legal finance is poised to play a central role—unlocking value in distressed assets, bridging funding gaps, and aligning with global best practices.

Burford’s Law-Firm Investment Plan Draws Fire

By John Freund |

Burford Capital’s new push to take minority stakes in U.S. law firms is already meeting resistance from tort-reform advocates and insurer-aligned groups, who argue the structure could blur loyalties inside the attorney-client relationship. The plan, described by Burford’s chief development officer Travis Lenkner as “strategic minority investments” to help firms scale, would rely on managed service organizations (MSOs) that house back-office assets while leaving legal work to a lawyer-owned entity. Supporters cast it as a lawyer-friendly alternative to private equity; skeptics see a back-door end-run around state bars’ bans on non-lawyer ownership.

An article in Insurance Journal reports that critics, including the Florida Justice Reform Institute’s William Large, warn MSO-style deals could tilt decision-making toward investors focused on “big verdicts,” threatening firm independence and client interests. Only Arizona permits direct non-lawyer ownership today, and while Utah and Washington, D.C., have loosened rules at the margins, most states still enforce bright-line prohibitions.

The debate has sharpened as disclosure and licensing regimes proliferate: at least 16 states now require some level of third-party funding transparency. The Insurance Journal piece also notes a recent Texas Bar ethics opinion that green-lights MSOs for law-firm services under narrow conditions, though it doesn’t answer the broader question of outside investors’ influence. For its part, Burford says it understands the ethical guardrails and intends to be a passive investor focused on firm growth and operational support.

For the legal finance industry, the MSO path signals a pivotal test. If bars and courts accept these structures, capital could flow directly into firm operations—potentially accelerating portfolio origination, technology spend, and fee-earner leverage. If regulators balk, expect renewed calls for explicit rulemaking on ownership, disclosure, and control—alongside creative alternatives (credit facilities, revenue shares, and hybrid portfolios) to replicate MSO-like benefits without the governance controversy.

BHP Presses Gramercy–Pogust on Control of £36bn Claim

By John Freund |

A high-stakes governance fight is spilling into the UK’s largest group action. BHP has demanded clarity over hedge fund Gramercy Funds Management’s role at Pogust Goodhead, the claimant firm fronting a £36 billion suit tied to Brazil’s 2015 Mariana dam disaster. The miner’s counsel at Slaughter and May points to recent leadership turmoil at the firm and questions whether a non-lawyer financier can exert de facto control over litigation strategy—an issue that cuts to the heart of legal ethics and England & Wales’ restrictions on who can direct claims.

Financial Times reports that Gramercy, which finances Pogust, has just extended $65 million more to the firm after the removal of CEO-cofounder Tom Goodhead. BHP wants answers on independence and management oversight as the case nears a pivotal High Court ruling. For its part, Pogust says it remains independent and committed to its clients, while Gramercy rejects any suggestion it owns or manages the firm. The backdrop is familiar to funders: courts’ increasing scrutiny of who calls the shots when capital underwrites complex, bet-the-company litigation. Prior settlement overtures from BHP and Vale—reported at $1.4 billion—were rebuffed as insufficient relative to the claim’s scale and alleged harm.

Beyond this case, the episode underscores a larger question: how far can financing arrangements go before they collide with the long-standing principle that lawyers—and only lawyers—control litigation? The answer matters well beyond Mariana. If courts or legislators tighten the definition of control, expect deal terms, governance covenants, and disclosure norms in UK funding to evolve quickly. For cross-border mass-harm claims, the line between support and steer is narrowing—and being tested in real time.