Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto
  • New York Enacts Landmark Consumer Legal Funding Legislation
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Jonathan Stroud

April 17, 2024

An LFJ Conversation with Jonathan Stroud

Jonathan Stroud is General Counsel at Unified Patents, where he
manages a growing team of talented, diverse attorneys and oversees a
docket of administrative challenges, appeals, licensing, pooling, and
district court work in addition to trademark, copyright,
administrative, amicus, policy, marketing, and corporate matters.


Prior to Unified, he was a patent litigator, and prior to that, he was
a patent examiner at the USPTO. He earned his J.D. with honors from
the American University Washington College of Law; his B.S. in
Biomedical Engineering from Tulane University; and his M.A. in Print
Journalism from the University of Southern California. He enjoys
teaching, writing, and speaking on patent and administrative law and
litigation finance.

Unified is a 350+ international membership organization that seeks to
improve patent quality and deter unsubstantiated or invalid patent
assertions in defined technology sectors (Zones) through its
activities. Its actions are focused broadly in Zones with substantial
assertions by Standards Essential Patents (SEP) holders and/or
Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). These actions may include analytics,
prior art, invalidity contests, patentability analysis, administrative
patent review (IPR/reexam), amicus briefs, economic surveys, and
essentiality studies. Unified works independently of its members to
achieve its deterrence goals. Small members join for free while larger
ones pay modest annual fees.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Jonathan Stroud:

1)   Unified Patents describes itself as an “anti-troll.” You claim to
be the only entity that deters abusive NPEs and never pays. Can you
elaborate?

In the patent risk management space, Unified is the only entity that
works to deter and disincentivize NPE assertions.  Because of the
expense and economics of patent litigation, parties often settle for
money damages less than the cost of defending themselves, paying the
entity, often for non-meritorious assertions. This allows them to
remain profitable, thus fueling and incentivizing future assertions,
regardless of merit. Unified is the only solution designed to counter
that dynamic.  That is why Unified never pays NPEs. This ensures that
Unified never incentivizes further NPE activity. By focusing on
deterrence, Unified never acts as a middleman, facilitating licensing
deals between NPEs and implementors.

2) How does Unified Patents work with litigation funders, specifically?

As many NPE suits are funded or controlled by third parties, we are
often called to consult on and seek to understand litigation funding
and the economics of assertion.  Among other things, we provide filing
data, funding information, reports, and other work related to funding
and also run a consulting business related to negotiations and aspects
of dealmaking affected by litigation funding.  For example, we have
helped identify that at least 30% of all U.S. patent litigation filed
in recent years has been funded (up through 2020), through one
mechanism or another.  We will continue to work to understand the
marketplace and transactions, and endeavor to provide the best insight
into the marketplace that our data affords.

3)  With Judge Connolly’s recent ruling, disclosure has become a hot
topic in the US. How do you see this ruling impacting IP litigation
going forward?

Well before Chief Judge Connolly’s actions, litigation funding
disclosure has been a topic of discussion at the judicial conference,
among other judges, and amongst those implementing and revising the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not to mention Congress and the SEC.
The Judicial Conference has been called to revise the disclosure rules
for over a decade.  Similar disclosure orders or rules applied in New
Jersey, California, Michigan, and another dozen district courts
nationwide, in addition to numerous rulings on admissibility and
relevance in Federal and state courts stretching back decades.  Chief
Judge Connolly’s order has attracted outsized interest in the patent
community in particular.  It quickly exposed some of the 500 or so
cases filed annually by IP Edge as funded, as well as the high number
of patent plaintiffs in Delaware.   Calls for disclosure did not begin
with Judge Connolly; has been a continuing ongoing debate stretching
back decades. Insurance disclosures go back to the early 70s, and
other types of loans or financial instruments are already subject to
certain disclosure rules, in court, governmentally, or by regulators.
Moving forward, the increasing prevalence of litigation funding and
the rising awareness among the judiciary and bar will mean fitful
district-specific under- and over-disclosure until a national rule is
put in place through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  It’s
inevitable.  It’s just a matter of time.

4) Insurers seem to be shying away from judgment preservation
insurance at the moment–is this a trend you see continuing, and how
might this impact IP litigation?

Insurance markets are often dominated by sales-side pressures and so
are susceptible to irrational exuberance and overpromotion of certain
policies.  Couple that with competition amongst brokers to offer
attractive terms for a “new” product, and you have pressures that have
driven down offered rates, a trend that seems to be reversing itself
now. To be sure, judgment preservation has existed in some form for
many years through other funding and insurance sources, and you’ve
always been able to buy and sell claims and judgments on appeal.

The increased emphasis on judgment preservation insurance seems driven
by a handful of brokers successfully selling rather large policies,
coupled with a glut of interest; my understanding is that some of the
recent (and predictable) remand on appeal have dampened
the enthusiasm of that market a tad, but that really just means rates
returning to reasonable levels (or at least growing resistant to
sales-side pressure).  The small JPI market should stabilize,
affording successful plaintiffs the option, and in turn extending
appellate timelines and recovery timelines, especially in
higher-profile damages award cases.  It will generally prevent
settlements below the insured threshold. It should also provide some
incentive to sue and to chase large damages awards in the first place,
if it becomes clear that JPI will be available after a judgment,
allowing for less well-capitalized plaintiffs to recover earlier and
avoid binary all-or-nothing outcomes.

Additionally, the Federal Circuit and other appellate courts will
eventually grapple with the “disclosure gap.” That is, the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure insurance policies since the 1970s must be
disclosed at the trial level, but not yet at the appellate level; but
the same concerns that animated the 1970 amendments to the FRCP now
apply on appeal, with the rise of JPI.  Circuits will have to
grapple with adopting disclosure rules for insurance policies
contingent upon appeal.

5)   What trends are you seeing in the IP space that is relevant to
litigation funders, and how does Unified Patents’ service fit into
those trends?

Early funding stories were dominated by larger cases and portfolios,
but we are now seeing a trend of much smaller cases being funded, and,
in the case of both IP Edge and AiPi Solutions, with certain patent
aggregators getting creative and funding entire suites of very small
nuisance cases.  We see funding now at all levels, from the IP Edges
of the world to the Burfords, and there is a trend toward investing in
pharmaceutical ANDA litigation and ITC cases.  Both should continue,
which should extend cases, increase the duration and expense of
litigation, and should drive more licensing.  Unified will continue to
seek to deter baseless assertions and will continue to identify,
discuss, and detail the structures, funding arrangements, and suits
related to litigation funding, and continue to show how much funding
is now dominating U.S. patent litigation, to the extent it is knowable.

More LFJ Conversations

View All
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto

By John Freund |

Rory is the CEO of Eperoto, championing the use of decision analysis to improve clarity around litigation and arbitration risk. Originally from New Zealand, he's worked within legal technology for decades, delivering innovative solutions to the top global firms, government, as well as specialist legal boutiques.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan:

Eperoto’s approach emphasizes using lawyer judgment rather than AI or data-driven models. Why is that distinction important, and how does it build trust among lawyers, funders, and other stakeholders?

At Eperoto, we believe that lawyer judgement is the foundation of credible litigation and arbitration analysis. High-stakes disputes aren’t like consumer tech problems where large-scale historical data exists and small inaccuracies are insignificant. They're unique, context-dependent situations where experience and nuanced legal reasoning are irreplaceable. In most commercial cases, AI simply doesn’t have the training data or contextual nuance to make defensible predictions. Right now it also struggles with the complexity of jurisdictional variation and the role of precedent. No funder or sophisticated client should rely on a generic model to value a multi-million-dollar dispute.

Litigation and arbitration are inherently grey-zones. Outcomes turn not only on points of law, but also on credibility assessments, witness performance, tribunal psychology, and how fact narratives are perceived. These are areas where AI is weak and where judges and experts routinely disagree. Research across behavioural psychology and negotiation theory shows that human reasoning is still essential in these environments. Lawyers will often use an AI tool as a sounding board to explore different ideas and arguments, but ultimately they rely on their own judgement and reasoning to assess how different elements of the case are likely to unfold.

Eperoto is therefore built around a simple principle: Lawyers make the judgement; the platform helps them to structure and quantify it.

This distinction builds trust for three reasons:

  1. It reflects how top practitioners already work. Clients retain leading counsel for their experience, intuition, and ability to form a reasoned opinion, not for machine-generated answers.
  2. It avoids “false precision.” AI-driven confidence levels often create a misleading impression of certainty. Eperoto keeps the human experts in control.
  3. It aligns with stakeholders’ expectations. Funders, insurers, GCs, CFOs and boards want a lawyer’s professional assessment, but expressed in a structured, decision-analytic way. Eperoto strengthens, rather than replaces, that judgment.

The result is a decision-analysis workflow that is transparent, explainable, and fully grounded in legal expertise. Precisely what stakeholders need to trust the numbers behind a funding or settlement decision.

When litigation funders assess potential cases, they often rely on intuition and experience. How does Eperoto help them quantify risk and likely outcomes in a way that strengthens those investment decisions?

Every litigation funder knows that a case is a contingent asset, and valuing that asset depends on understanding the likelihood of outcomes at trial or arbitration. Yet the process used to reach those views is usually unstructured, highly subjective, and difficult to defend when presented to an investment committee or external partner.

Eperoto addresses this by helping lawyers to apply decision-tree analysis. This is a method used for decades in energy, pharma, finance, and indeed litigation. Instead of relying purely on intuition, lawyers:

  1. Map the key uncertainties. What issues drive liability? Likely quantum outcomes? How might damages be reduced? Where do procedural or evidentiary risks sit?
  2. Assign probabilities grounded in legal judgment. No AI predictions: purely the lawyers’ professional view expressed clearly rather than implied.
  3. Estimate costs & cost-shifting, interest, and any enforcement risk.

From this the tool calculates a visual quantitative risk report, showing funders the likely outcomes, expected value, downside scenarios, tail risk, and more.

This sort of analysis:

  • makes an investment case more rigorous,
  • dramatically improves internal and external defensibility, and
  • surfaces insights impossible to see from narrative memos alone.

Funders, insurers, and counsel repeatedly tell us that this level of clarity is transformative. It sharpens decisionmaking, strengthens underwriting discipline, and improves alignment across stakeholders. Over time, a consistent, structured approach creates a more disciplined portfolio and generates a feedback loop that measurably improves investment decisions.

Clearer communication of risk and value benefits all stakeholders. What are the biggest barriers to achieving that clarity in practice?

The biggest barrier is language ambiguity. A typical merits opinion reads something like:

“It's most likely the defendant will be found liable for X, with only an outside chance the court will accept the argument Y. Damages could be as high as Z.”

Terms such as “very likely,” “little chance,” or “low risk” are interpreted wildly differently by different people, even among seasoned professionals. Research consistently shows a huge disparity in how people interpret such terms. For example "unlikely" can be interpreted as meaning anywhere from below 10% to over 40% likely to occur. Your investment decisions shouldn’t be subject to this margin of error just from internal communications.

A second barrier is complexity overload. Lawyers often present lengthy written analyses where different legal issues are explained sequentially:

“X might happen, but if not then Y. In that case Z will determine…”

Decision-makers are left to combine all these uncertainties mentally, plus litigation costs, insurance, interest, enforcement risks, appeal probabilities, and timing assumptions. Even highly experienced professionals can't intuitively do this correctly.

Eperoto solves these issues in three ways:

a) It forces clarity through quantification. “80% likelihood the contract is valid” is unambiguous, whereas “very likely” may be understood as 65% by one person and 95% by another.

b) It combines the factors automatically. No one needs to mentally integrate legal issues, damages pathways, costs, or conditional dependencies.

c) It presents the analysis visually. Charts and diagrams let stakeholders see the shape of the dispute, rather than reading dense text.

Together these remove unnecessary complexity, leaving stakeholders to focus on the true strategic questions rather than being stuck in ambiguous details.

Many lawyers hesitate to provide quantitative estimates because they fear being “wrong.” How do you encourage practitioners to engage with uncertainty in a more structured, transparent way?

This is a common concern, but it fundamentally misunderstands what quantification achieves. Providing estimates numerically doesn't remove uncertainty, it communicates it transparently. The alternative isn't "not being wrong"; it's being vague, which is far worse for the client or investor.

Sophisticated clients, funders, and boards understand that litigation outcomes are uncertain. What they want is clarity, not perfection. Yes, you should still make clear that a percentage estimate is not a promise; it is a transparent reflection of professional judgement, less ambiguous than vague adjectives. But once everyone accepts that, it allows for greater clarity and indeed honesty.

We encourage lawyers to adopt a mindset similar to experts in other industries:

  • Quantification is not about being right; it’s about making uncertainty explicit.
  • A structured model allows you to compare multiple scenarios, e.g. optimistic vs pessimistic or comparing different counsel’s assessments.
  • Visual decision-trees help practitioners and clients see how different issues interact without needing to commit to one “correct” narrative.

Lawyers often find that once they begin using numeric estimates and decision trees, discussions with clients become easier, expectations align more quickly, and advice becomes more defensible. Many even rely on the visual component alone when presenting paths, strategy, and what truly drives the dispute.

How can tools like Eperoto help bridge the gap between legal reasoning and financial analysis, bringing dispute resolution closer to the standards of decision-making seen in other business contexts?

Business-critical decisions in energy, pharmaceuticals, and corporate strategy have used quantitative decision analysis for decades. A pharmaceutical company wouldn't greenlight a $50M clinical trial based on phrases like "good chance of success" or "strong scientific rationale". They'd model probabilities, conditional outcomes, and expected value. Yet litigation decisions involving similar amounts often rely on purely that kind of qualitative language.

The gap isn't from a lack of judgment. It's that legal reasoning and financial decision-making speak different languages. Lawyers think in terms of arguments, precedents, and likelihoods. Funders think in terms of expected values, downside risk, and portfolio returns. Eperoto translates between these worlds.

Here's a concrete example: A law firm presents a case with "strong liability prospects" and "substantial damages potential." The investment committee sees an attractive headline but struggles to assess the risk. Using Eperoto, counsel maps the decision tree and reveals that while liability looks good at 70%, the real value driver is a secondary issue: whether a contractual damages cap applies. If the cap doesn't apply, a 40% likelihood, it would triple the recovery. The investment thesis becomes clear: this isn't a simple 70% bet on liability; it's a case where the upside scenario creates most of the expected value. That fundamentally changes how you price the funding, structure the terms, and think about settlement strategy.

This kind of insight can easily be buried in a narrative memo but obvious when properly structured.

Specifically, Eperoto enables:

1. A common analytical framework - When counsel says "we have a strong case but quantum is uncertain," Eperoto forces that assessment into a structure funders recognize: probability-weighted scenarios with costs, timing, and enforcement risk factored in. This isn't dumbing down legal analysis; it's making it actionable.

2. Proper treatment of uncertainty - In portfolio management, no one expects point estimates: they expect distributions, scenarios, and sensitivity analysis. Eperoto brings that same rigor to litigation assets, showing not just expected value but the shape of the risk distribution. What's the 10th percentile outcome? How sensitive is the return to different assumptions? This is standard practice in all other asset classes.

3. Defensible investment decisions - Just as a PE firm documents the assumptions behind an acquisition, funding decisions should have the same analytical discipline. Eperoto creates an audit trail showing why a deal was approved or a settlement accepted, based on structured analysis rather than gut feel. Critical for investment committee scrutiny and stakeholder confidence.

4. Portfolio-level insights over time - Applying decision analysis consistently across a portfolio creates compounding benefits. Funders develop better calibration of their judgment, identify patterns of cases that outperform or underperform expectations, and build institutional knowledge about what drives value. Over time, this disciplined approach strengthens underwriting quality and improves portfolio returns. Just like how data-driven decision-making in other industries creates feedback loops that enhance performance.

The result is that litigation funding can be managed with the same analytical rigor as any other alternative asset class. Lawyers retain their essential role as expert judgment-makers, but that judgment gets expressed in a framework that investment committees can understand, stress-test, and defend to stakeholders.

 
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Lauren Harrison, Co-Founder & Managing Partner of Signal Peak Partners

By John Freund |

Lauren Harrison serves as a co-founder and managing partner of Signal Peak Partners. Named one of Lawdragon’s Global 100 Leaders in Litigation Finance, Ms. Harrison brings over 25 years of high stakes commercial litigation experience to her role as funder. Prior to co-founding Signal Peak, Ms Harrison served as a Vice President to Law Finance Group.

As a trial lawyer, Lauren was a partner at Vinson & Elkins and later at Jones Walker. She was recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer annually from 2009 to 2021, a Best Lawyer in America for Intellectual Property, Antitrust Law and Commercial Litigation, and a Top Woman Attorney. Chambers recognized Ms. Harrison for her Antitrust work. She was awarded a Pro Bono College of the State of Texas Award for her work on behalf of nonprofit art institutions.

Lauren is a frequent speaker at conferences and law schools, presenting recently at BU Law School, SMU Law School, the UH Law Center, the Institute for Energy Law, and LitFinCon.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Lauren Harrison:

Your inaugural Signal Peak Symposium brings together leaders from the judiciary, in-house counsel, and elite law firms. What motivated you to launch this invitation-only gathering, and what key message or change in the litigation-finance industry are you hoping the Symposium will advance?

Litigation funding conferences are a great way to connect with our counterparts within the industry. They offer space to discuss innovation and to workshop best practices. We are fortunate that, for the most part, third party funders recognize that each of us fills a niche. Rather than competing in a zero sum game, we contribute to the evolution of a powerful litigation tool. That said, industry events can devolve into echo chambers. We wanted to create an event where our peers do not form a supermajority, and where we can listen with fresh ears to new ideas.  Our sector faces rising tides of interest in regulation, taxation and disclosure. The time is now to come together to address those issues, and in order to do that it is important to have the full range of stakeholders and policymakers present. 

Signal Peak was founded on values like honesty, alignment of interests, speed, and creativity, and you’ve framed litigation funding as helping plaintiffs ascend complex cases. How does the Symposium help reinforce your firm’s identity and commitment to transparency and partner-first funding?

Litigation finance events typically do not draw much interest from the market side - practicing litigators and their clients. A point of pride at Signal Peak is that we are trial lawyers for trial lawyers. We want to hear attorneys’ insights about how we can be of help and to enjoy a level of discourse that comes from having experience with the type of complex commercial disputes that we are sourcing and underwriting. We have a comfort level with the tools, timelines and techniques of the adversarial process that builds trust. In a guild profession that is guided by ethical and fiduciary bounds, shared experience is significant. We expect our event to highlight our foundational expertise, to promote collaboration, and to create new opportunities to better serve our market. 

Your professional backgrounds are in civil litigation at top firms and then litigation funding. How does that dual experience shape your strategy at Signal Peak, and how do you expect that background to resonate with attorneys and plaintiffs attending the Symposium?

We understand that every first chair lawyer is essentially the CEO of their case, and some of their core executive functions are accessing needed capital and deploying resources efficiently towards case conclusion. Because we have worn the shoes of the trial attorneys who participate in funding, we are focused on keeping their and their clients’ needs front and center.  While we will never look for case control or intercede in the attorney-client relationship, we do look for opportunities to partner with top lawyers in ways that help them manage case expenses and durational risk. We like to say that all boats rise on a rising tide. Signal Peak strives to align with lawyers’ and their clients’ interests so that everyone has sufficient back end interest to reach their goals.

The Symposium will include a keynote tribute to H. Lee Godfrey, honoring his career. Why was it important to include that tribute in your inaugural event, and how does his legacy influence how you think about access to justice and the future of litigation finance?

Lee Godfrey and his partner the late Steve Susman developed the model that underlies Signal Peak’s business, and really our entire industry. We want to work with attorneys who are willing to invest in their cases just as we do, and Lee and Steve exemplified that with gusto. Lee was a personal friend and one of the great trial attorneys ever to set foot in a courtroom. Stories of his prowess are legion, and I do not want to steal anyone’s thunder by previewing them here. I will say that Lee’s voir dire was the stuff of legend, and his gentlemanly wittiness on cross examination will likely not be matched.

What are you hoping that someone considering working with Signal Peak (either as an attorney with a case needing funding or as a potential investor) will take away from the Symposium and from Signal Peak’s launch so far?  

We are excited to showcase our team. Before Mani Walia and I decided to join forces, we knew that our values and interests were aligned, but we did not predict the extent to which Signal Peak would feel greater than the sum of its parts. We are eager for our colleagues Jackson Schaap and Carly Thompson-Peters to share the spotlight with us. We could not have accomplished so much in such a short time without their brilliant collaboration. I hope that our friends who join us in Houston on February 26 will get to see the alchemy that blends our team and will understand that when they work with Signal Peak, they will become part of a cohesive and nimble group.

LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Logan Alters, Co-Founder & Head of Growth at ClaimAngel

By John Freund |

Logan Alters is the Co-Founder and Head of Growth at ClaimAngel, the nation's first transparent legal-funding marketplace. He built the company from a concept into a nationwide platform trusted by 500+ law firms, 25+ funders, and 20,000+ fundings at $100M+ in volume, all at one standardized rate. Before ClaimAngel, Logan worked across MedTech, consumer products, and venture capital. He earned his degree from UC Berkeley Haas School of Business in three years while competing as a Division I point guard.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Logan Alters:

ClaimAngel positions itself as a transparency-first platform at a time when plaintiff funding is facing heightened scrutiny from regulators and bar associations. How do you see ethics, disclosure, and alignment with ABA and state rules reshaping the future of the industry, and what specific standards is ClaimAngel trying to institutionalize?

We started ClaimAngel because we saw a gap that nobody was closing. Plaintiffs have access to a new asset, their case, but the industry built to serve them wasn't working. There are more than a thousand funding companies in the U.S., each setting its own rates, contracts, and processes. That fragmentation created an environment where anything goes. Rates compounded in ways clients couldn't understand until settlement. Fees got buried in contracts. Law firms experienced the frustration firsthand or heard the stories and decided not to recommend funding at all. The whole system defaulted to relationships over results: who you knew mattered more than what you offered. Funders competed for access instead of competing on terms. That model doesn't scale, and it doesn't serve plaintiffs.

That's the problem we set out to solve. Not by becoming funder #1,001, but by building marketplace infrastructure. In 2023, we pitched Morgan & Morgan's executives on a different future. A marketplace, not a funding company. One rate, one process, one outcome for every client. They didn't think it could be done, but they believed in the mission. John Morgan recently called ClaimAngel the Charles Schwab of client funding. The comparison resonated with us because it captures exactly what we're building. Schwab didn't invent investing. He standardized it. He made access equal and fees transparent. Before Schwab, Wall Street rewarded insiders. After Schwab, everyone got the same deal. Plaintiff funding is at that same inflection point.

We've now processed more than $100 million in volume across more than 20,000 fundings. Every contract includes plain-English rate disclosures. Every case shows plaintiffs what they'll owe at settlement before they sign and at any time in their portal. That's the standard: no surprises, no fine print. That's not a pilot. That's proof the model works.

We're not a funder. We're the infrastructure that makes funding predictable, transparent, and aligned with what plaintiffs and law firms actually need. When every client gets the same terms, and every contract looks the same, there's nothing to hide from regulators or bar associations. Standardization is the compliance solution.

The industry has operated like the wild west for too long. Regulators are stepping in. Bar associations are paying attention. Law firms are already choosing partners based on compliance and transparency, not relationships. That's the shift. More than 500 firms have at least one client funded through ClaimAngel. The next chapter will be defined by who builds the standard, not who has the best relationships. That's what we're here to do.

You describe plaintiff funding as being at a pivotal moment where opaque, high-rate transactions are giving way to marketplace models. What pressures or structural changes are driving that shift, and why is standardization becoming a competitive advantage?

The old model is breaking down. Not because anyone decided it should, because the market moved.

Law firms are shifting their focus toward efficiency and growth, minimizing anything that creates friction. They want funding that helps them maximize case value, not funding that eats into their fees at settlement. A firm managing thousands of cases can't afford the chaos of tracking liens with unpredictable compounding rates that make settlements harder to close. They want one process that works every time.

This is especially true for smaller firms. A solo practitioner or ten-person shop just wants to practice law. They don't want funding to become another thing they have to manage. Standardization means funding works as a tool in the background, not an encroachment on how they run their practice.

People are more financially aware than they were ten years ago. They understand interest. They ask about caps. They compare terms. The days of burying fees in contracts and hoping no one notices are over. When clients ask questions, firms need answers they can stand behind.

On the other side of the table, insurance carriers are already ahead. They use data to model case values, they identify plaintiffs under financial pressure, and they extend timelines knowing desperate clients will settle for less. Their algorithms win. When a plaintiff can't afford to wait, the carrier knows it, and the offer reflects that weakness. As funding becomes more widespread and predictable, carriers will have to adjust. Plaintiffs who can afford to be patient change the calculus entirely. That's the power of standardized funding.

Capital markets are moving too. Litigation finance is maturing into a real asset class, and institutional money is looking for places to deploy. But capital doesn't flow into fragmentation. A thousand funders with a thousand different rate structures and contract terms isn't investable infrastructure. Standardization is what unlocks scale. It's what allows the industry to grow from a few billion dollars to tens of billions deployed annually.

These forces aren't pushing toward a slightly better version of the old model. They're pushing toward new infrastructure. The companies that figure this out early will define the next era of plaintiff funding.

Your Rule of One framework aims for one rate, one process, one outcome. Why pursue a true standard instead of a traditional pricing strategy, and how do you respond to funders who argue flexibility is necessary for risk management?

One rate. One process. One outcome. That's not a tagline. It's the entire model.

A client knows exactly what they will owe. A law firm knows what a lien looks like at any point. No surprises. No shifting rates. No complicated projections. Simplicity isn't a marketing angle. It's a consumer protection tool and an operational stability tool for firms of any size.

The old model worked differently. Every funder created its own rate structure, contract terms, and interpretation of risk. Most clients don't understand why a four percent monthly compounding rate leads to a 6x repayment in 24 months. That complexity benefits only the insiders who understand it.

Bob Simon at Simon Law Group put it simply: lawyers have an ethical duty to do what's best for their clients. If a client needs access to capital to care for themselves or loved ones, you should help them find the lowest interest rate. That's not optional. It's the job.

The consequences of getting it wrong are real. Firms inherit cases all the time where the previous attorney used funding with poor terms, and by the time the case settles, the client's net is so low the case can't even settle. It leads to law firm fee reductions or the client drops the firm or it goes to trial. That's not what plaintiff funding is supposed to do.

Funders often defend rate flexibility as risk management. But pricing in plaintiff funding didn't evolve from risk. It evolved from fragmentation. With no shared standard, companies layered compounding, step-ups, duration triggers, underwriting fees, broker fees that can reach twenty percent, and buyout fees. None of this reflects actual case risk. It reflects legacy complexity built in isolation.

That complexity helped keep plaintiff funding adoption stuck at four to six percent of the total potential market. Rates rose so high that funding became a last resort. Yet more than ninety-seven percent of personal injury cases settle or win. When an asset class has a loss profile comparable to credit card defaults, extreme pricing is hard to defend. Real risk management comes from disciplined underwriting, transparency, and fair pricing, not stacking fees to justify high rates.

Standardization isn't a constraint. It's the path to mass adoption. The Rule of One isn't a theory. It's 20,000+ fundings across 500+ firms. That's proof at scale.

You’ve set a standardized rate of 27.8 percent simple annually with a 2x cap. What was the economic thinking behind those parameters, and how does this model align incentives across plaintiffs, law firms, and funders?

We didn't start by asking what rate we could charge. We started by asking who we're actually competing with.

Ninety-five percent of plaintiffs don't use plaintiff funding. When someone is injured, out of work, and waiting on a claim, they reach for credit cards and personal loans. That's the market we're converting.

The problem is that consumer credit wasn't built for a plaintiff's reality. It prices the borrower, not the case. It assumes steady income and monthly payments. A plaintiff has access to a new asset, their case, but a credit card can't tap into that. The pressure spills onto law firms and ultimately the settlement.

So we worked backward from that reality. If we want to convert plaintiffs away from credit cards, we need to beat credit card economics for someone who can't work, can't make monthly payments, and doesn't know when their case will settle. That's how we arrived at 27.8 percent simple rate with a 2x cap.

Here's what that looks like in practice. A plaintiff who takes $5,000 and settles in 18 months owes around $7,400 with all fees. With a typical compounding product with a slew of origination and servicing fees, that same funding could easily exceed $15,000. That difference is the gap between a client who walks away whole and a client who resents their attorney.

For funders, the math works if they're willing to evolve. The old model delivered returns that would make a hedge fund blush, but in just a small percentage of cases. Our model delivers lower per-case returns but at scale, with fast capital deployment, consistent servicing, and a loss rate in the single digits, comparable to credit card defaults. The key is predictability. Our 27.8% annual rate (no compounding ever) works out to 6.95% every three months until settlement or the 2x cap. The 2x cap means a plaintiff who takes $5,000 will never owe more than $10,000, and that cap doesn't hit until 46 months. Most "2x caps" in the industry hit at one, two, or three years. Ours gives plaintiffs nearly four years.

That rate is only sustainable because our marketplace collapsed the cost structure. Traditional models relied on sales teams, manual deployment, and relationship-driven acquisition. That overhead required high rates. Our marketplace removes most of that friction. No sales cycle, no manual underwriting queues, standardized processes across every case. Efficiency and market competition make a lower rate viable. Insurance carriers already use data to identify weak and desperate plaintiffs. Our marketplace gives funders the same advantage. We standardized underwriting with quality case data (injury details, liability, policy limits, case docs, and more), so funders make calculated decisions in minutes instead of reputation-based approvals. Lower costs and disciplined underwriting mean we can sustain 27.8% at scale. It's a different business. It requires funders who see where the industry is going and law firms that recognize their clients deserve better. We've built the infrastructure to make that easy.

The legacy model asked: how much can we charge? We asked: how do we convert the ninety-five percent? One question builds an industry. The other protects a margin.

You’ve argued that plaintiff funding is best understood as a tool that converts time into negotiating power. How does ClaimAngel’s marketplace help plaintiffs stay in the fight longer and capture more of their claim’s true value?

How many situations in life can you actually buy time? That's what plaintiff funding is. Not debt. Not a loan. Time. And when you have a legal case, time is power.

When someone is injured and out of work, time is the one thing they don't have. Bills pile up. Pressure builds. Insurance carriers know this and wait. The longer a plaintiff can't afford to hold out, the lower the offer. That's not negotiation. That's leverage working against the people who need it most.

Funding flips that dynamic. A plaintiff who can pay rent and cover medical bills while their case develops is a plaintiff who can wait for the right offer. That's why they hired their attorney in the first place: to fight for the true value of their claim, not to take the first check that shows up.

When plaintiffs have time, law firms can do the work they were hired to do. Gather full medicals. Wait for maximum recovery. Push back on lowball offers. The cases that settle for $40,000 under pressure become six-figure results when the client isn't calling every day saying they need the money now. One client told us she was three days from losing her apartment when she got funded. Eighteen months later, her case settled for six figures. That's what time buys. Firms get more revenue with less pressure to settle early. Clients walk away with what they deserve from the start.

But here's the problem with traditional funding: time is power until settlement day, when it turns into kryptonite. A plaintiff who borrowed $5,000 at compounding rates suddenly owes $15,000+. The attorney's fee gets reduced. The client's net recovery shrinks. Everyone fought for two years to maximize the settlement, and the funding lien swallows the value. That's not time as power. That's time as extraction. Our model solves this. At 27.8% simple with a 2x cap, that same $5,000 costs $7,400, not $15,000. The client and attorney walk away with what they earned. Time stays power, even at settlement.

That's what ClaimAngel's marketplace delivers. In traditional funding, a plaintiff applies to one funder, waits for approval, and might get rejected. Then they start over. Our marketplace removes that friction. Multiple funders see the case simultaneously. Standardized terms mean no negotiation. A plaintiff who applies Monday can have funding by Wednesday. When you're three days from losing your apartment, that speed is the difference between staying in the fight and taking whatever offer is on the table.

The industry maximized what plaintiffs owe. We maximize what plaintiffs keep.