Trending Now
Commercial Deals

LFJ Dealmakers Panel: Opportunities at the Intersection of Funding, Mass Torts & ABS

September 28, 2023

LFJ Dealmakers Panel: Opportunities at the Intersection of Funding, Mass Torts & ABS

The panel discussion consisted of Jacob Malherbe, CEO of X Social Media, Sara Papantonio, Partner at Levin Papantonio Rafferty, and Ryan Stephen, Managing Partner of Pine Valley Capital Partners. The panel was moderated by Steve Nober, CEO of Consumer Attorney Marketing Group (CAMG), The discussion spanned the following topics:
  • Who’s doing what in mass torts? How about funding?
  • How funders are evaluating and working with firms
  • Examples of the ABS framework in action & challenges
  • Pre- and post-settlement funding and time to disbursement
The conversation began around the integration of litigation funders into the mass torts sector. There are a lot of variables to consider around mass torts which typically don’t exist in other case types. These include marketing ethics, use of proceeds, claimant access and relationship building, where the call center is located, firm operations at an administrative level, etc. These are all aspects of a law firm that litigation funders need to understand if they are going to partner with a mass torts law firm. The degree of diligence is vast, and will require a years-long commitment. What’s more, there is now a focus on unethical marketing practices, with Congress taking a look at the tactics being used. The question for funders is, how can you protect yourself from unethical marketing efforts (funders might be named in a suit against the law firm). Funders need to mitigate these risks by asking more questions at the outset: What kind of advertising is being used, where are the clients coming from, how do I know that the clients are real (ad tracking)? Too many funders are pouring money into this lucrative space, and run the risk of encountering scammers who set up a business looking to raise money for a mass torts claim, when they have no ability to secure claimants or conduct the proper marketing outreach. What this comes down to at its core is relationships—understanding and knowing who you’re working with. Funders need to feel that the law firm they partner with us trustworthy, but of course should still conduct their own diligence to verify that all activities are on the up and up. On this last point, the panel recommends creating more nuanced tracking—not just ‘cost per case.’ Track advertising costs, medical records, other marketing materials. Really understand how money is moving at a granular level. The discussion then pivoted over to the Camp Lejeune case. Sara Papantonio feels that there will be one more opportunity to make a push for cases when payouts start happening. The question is, will there be enough time to advertise and file a claim before the statute of limitations runs out? Papantonio also noted that many clients won’t qualify for the elective option, and those that do probably won’t take it because of how undervalued it is. So likely, we will see more cases move into litigation. Values are starting to be presented for Tier 1 and Tier 2 injuries, which will help push this into litigation as well. She believes around May of 2024 will be an opportunity to advertise, but the statute of limitations runs out in August. Papantonio explained that Tier 1 injuries are far less risk for funders and litigators. Tier 2s and Tier 3s will have to move through a process, and some won’t be approved, so there is more risk there. Papantonio also believes the fees will be capped at 20-25%, which was the DOJs recommendation. So funders and law firms should plan for that. One final point Papantonio made, was that these mega mass torts are sucking up all the oxygen in the space, but there are plenty of smaller torts that are very meritorious and present opportunities for funders and law firms. The panel concurred, given that $1 billion has spent on Camp Lejeune already, so any new entrants into that claim are coming in late stage. Panelists Ryan Stephen and Jacob Malherbe added that torts such as Tylenol, Roundup part two, paraquat, PFAS claim (which the panel believes might become the biggest case ever), anti-terrorism cases, and others. Malherbe even recommended ‘The Devil We Know,’ a documentary on Netflix about the PFAS claim—so anyone interested can follow up with some binge watching!
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Uber Told £340m Group Claim Must Follow Costs Budgeting Rules

By John Freund |

In a notable ruling, the High Court has directed that a £340 million group action against Uber London Ltd will be subject to costs budgeting, despite the claim’s substantial size. The decision was handed down in the case of White & Ors v Uber London Ltd & Ors, where the total value of the claim far exceeds the £10 million threshold above which costs budgeting is typically not required under the Civil Procedure Rules.

According to Law Gazette, Mrs Justice O’Farrell chose to exercise judicial discretion to apply the budgeting regime. Her decision marks a significant moment for large-scale group litigation in England and Wales, underscoring the court’s growing interest in ensuring proportionality and transparency of legal costs—even in high-value cases.

An article in the Law Society Gazette reports that the ruling means the parties must now submit detailed estimates of incurred and anticipated legal costs, which will be reviewed and approved by the court. This move imposes a degree of cost control typically absent from group claims of this scale and signals a potential shift in how such cases are managed procedurally.

The decision carries important implications for the litigation funding industry. Funders underwriting group claims can no longer assume exemption from cost control measures based on claim size alone. The presence of court-approved cost budgets may impact the funders’ risk analysis and return expectations, potentially reshaping deal terms in high-value group actions. This development could prompt more cautious engagement from funders and a closer examination of litigation strategy in similar collective proceedings moving forward.

Commercial

Will Law Firms Become the Biggest Power Users of AI Voice Agents?

By Kris Altiere |

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

A new cross-industry study from Moneypenny suggests that while some sectors are treading carefully with AI-powered voice technology, the legal industry is emerging as a surprisingly enthusiastic adopter. In fact, 74% of legal firms surveyed said they are already embracing AI Voice Agents , the highest adoption rate across all industries polled.

This may seem counterintuitive for a profession built on human judgement, nuance and discretion. But the research highlights a growing shift: law firms are leaning on AI not to replace human contact, but to protect it.

Why Legal Is Leaning In: Efficiency Without Eroding Trust

Legal respondents identified labor savings (50%) as the most compelling benefit of AI Voice Agents.  But behind that topline number sits a deeper story:

  • Firms are increasingly flooded with routine enquiries.
  • Clients still expect immediate, professional responses.
  • Staff time is too valuable to spend triaging logistics.

Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing at Moneypenny, said:
“Some companies and callers are understandably a little nervous about how AI Voice Agents might change the call experience. That’s why it’s so important to design them carefully so interactions feel personal, relevant, and tailored to the specific industry and situation. By taking on the routine parts of a call, an AI agent frees up real people to handle the conversations that are more complex, sensitive, or high-value.”

For the legal sector, that balance is particularly valuable.

A Look At Other Industries

Hospitality stands out as the most reluctant adopter, with only 22% of companies using AI-powered virtual reception for inbound calls and 43% exploring AI Voice Agents.
By contrast, the legal sector’s 74% engagement suggests a profession increasingly comfortable pairing traditional client care with modern efficiency.

The difference stems from call types: whereas hospitality relies heavily on emotional warmth, legal calls hinge on accuracy, confidentiality, and rapid routing areas where well-calibrated AI excels.

What Legal Firms Want Most From AI Voice Agents

The research reveals where legal sees the greatest potential for AI voice technology:

  • Healthcare: faster response times (75%)
  • Hospitality: reducing service costs (67%)
  • Real estate: enhanced call quality and lead qualification (50%)
  • Finance: 24/7 availability (45%), improved caller satisfaction (44%), scalability (43%)

Legal’s top future use case is appointment management (53%).

This aligns neatly with the administrative pain points most firms face,  juggling court dates, consultations and multi-lawyer calendars.

Each industry also had high expectations for AI Voice Agent features, from natural interruption handling to configurable escalation rules.
For legal, data security and compliance topped the list at 63%.

This security-first mindset is unsurprising in a sector where reputation and confidentiality are non-negotiable.

Among legal companies, 42% said that integration with existing IT systems like CRM or helpdesk tools was critical.

This points to a broader shift: law firms increasingly want AI not just as a call handler but as part of the client-intake and workflow ecosystem.

The Bigger Trend: AI to Protect Human Time

Across every industry surveyed, one theme is emerging: companies don’t want AI to replace humans ,they want it to give humans back the time to handle what matters.

For legal teams, this means freeing lawyers and support staff from constant call-handling so they can focus on high-value, sensitive work.

Why This Matters for Law Firms in 2025

The AI adoption race in legal is no longer about novelty; it’s about staying competitive.

Clients expect real-time responses, yet firms are constrained by staffing and increasing administrative load. Well-designed AI Voice Agents offer a way to protect responsiveness without compromising on professionalism or security.

With compliance pressures rising, talent shortages ongoing, and client acquisition becoming more competitive, the research suggests law firms are turning to AI as a strategic solution and not a shortcut.

Moneypenny’s Perspective

Moneypenny, a leader in customer communication solutions, recently launched its new AI Voice Agent following the success of an extensive beta program. The next-generation virtual assistant speaks naturally with callers, giving businesses greater flexibility in how they manage customer conversations.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

LSB Launches Oversight Programme Targeting Litigation Growth

By John Freund |

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has unveiled a new consumer‑protection initiative to address mounting concerns in the UK legal market linked to volume litigation, law‑firm consolidators and unregulated service providers. An article in Legal Futures reports that the regulator cited “clear evidence” of risks to consumers arising from the dramatic growth of volume litigation, pointing in particular to the collapse of firms such as SSB Law.

Legal Futures reports that under the programme, the LSB will explore whether the current regulatory framework adequately protects consumers from harm in mass‑litigation contexts. That includes examining: whether all litigation funding – especially portfolio funding models – should fall under the supervision of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA); whether co‑regulation arrangements should be established between the FCA and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA); and whether the list of reserved legal activities needs revision to account for the rise of unregulated providers and AI‑enabled legal services.

On the law‑firm side the initiative spotlights the consolidation trend — especially accumulator or “consolidator” firms backed by private equity and acquiring large numbers of clients. The LSB flagged risks around viability, quality of client care and short‑term investor‑driven growth at the expense of compliance and long‑term service stability.

For the litigation‑funding sector, the message is unmistakable: the regulator will be more active in mapping the relationships between funders, law firms and client outcomes. It intends to use its market‑intelligence function to monitor whether misaligned incentives in the funding‑chain may harm consumers, and to obtain data from frontline regulators where necessary.