Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, has spent two decades in pre-settlement funding, guiding Legal-Bay from a pure broker model to a hybrid structure and, most recently, to a fully direct funder operating off its own balance sheet.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Chris Janish:

You've been in pre-settlement funding for 20 years, longer than most people in this space. How has the consumer legal funding industry changed from when you started to where it is today, and what's been the biggest shift you didn't see coming?

I think the biggest change is that documents and files move so much faster now with technology. Years ago we would have to fax major legal and medical files over fax and it was just maddening. Contracts are signed via electronic services too. Technology has made it easier to be efficient and scale. I see an industry that is only in its second quarter century of life — still much growth to go. I think products will get even more creative and advantageous for both plaintiffs and lawyers to advance cases with more liquidity and flexibility. The biggest thing I see coming is major consolidation — there is tremendous capital coming into the business who love the yields and want more credit lending capacity. Larger companies who are having a hard time scaling will start to acquire or "roll up" smaller companies.

Legal Bay started as a broker, evolved into a hybrid broker/funder model, and is now moving to fund entirely on your own balance sheet. Walk us through that evolution: what drove each transition, and what does going fully direct mean for the plaintiffs you serve?

I love this question, because it really takes us into what Legal-Bay is all about. Which is we were built on customer service. I've run the entire gamut in industry. In 2006 I started as an investor looking at this model, which was similar to my experience in running a hedge fund on Wall Street with similar convertible features. Then in 2010 I came on as a marketing consultant, driving leads and developing processing for Legal-Bay to be packaged for funding evaluation. By 2011, I decided to buy the Legal-Bay assets and became an owner in a business that had no money to invest directly in cases, but I was able to forge a partnership with a Canadian bank who had more flexibility than US banks at the time. (For the early part of this business it was very hard to get institutional capital due to restrictions and general uncertainty of the collateral.) Not having the capital, the only way to retain a lead was to ensure them that we would provide them the best customer service out there and work their cases until exhaustion. Legal-Bay made a name for themselves and the brand early on.

By 2018 we had made investments and partnerships in 2 startup funds, guided by my knowledge, that saw total AUM over $100MM. During those times we focused on origination and intake and let our partners work on capital raising. So, not having all our own capital made us part broker, part funder — hence why I said hybrid. All through it, we maintained our identity — and still do to this day — that when you call Legal-Bay you will always get a live person. Ultimately in 2023 we decided, after 5 years of a successful joint venture, to sell out of our profit share and create a liquidity event for Legal-Bay that gave us enough capital to go on our own and have a full end-to-end process right in our office from intake to funding to servicing, while still never losing our key identity.

You're looking to raise $25 million to fuel this next phase. What does that capital allow Legal Bay to do that it couldn't do before, and what are institutional investors looking for when they evaluate a consumer legal funding platform in 2026?

We have outgrown our capital needs and are looking to double our AUM in the next 2-3 years. The only way to grow in this business is you need to be putting out more money than what is coming back. You always want to have good portfolio turnover to show you are booking profits and picking the right cases, but in order to scale and grow, your originations need to be higher than your inflows coming back. That's what the capital is going to allow us to do — aggressively market in all 3 revenue channels we have and build core attorney relationships at the right pricing. And you guessed it: customer service.

Institutional investors are looking to evaluate every single last detail of your operation. We were lucky to have partners in the past that we basically outsourced this to, but I learned a lot through that process when I would pitch in with policy and procedures. So, we have a team now that is fully prepared with a full-scale data room that gives any investor a full understanding of any part of our business with a point and click.

New York just enacted the Consumer Litigation Funding Act, Kansas passed its own version, and more states are moving toward regulation. As someone who's operated through every phase of this market, do you see regulation as a competitive advantage for established players like Legal Bay, or does it create new headaches?

This is a double-edged sword and you hit on a chord that many of the smaller or medium-sized companies are going through. I'll take you back to when I started in this business and a new investor asked me, "what keeps you up at night?" And I said "regulation" — we had no idea which way the wind was going to blow. Litigation funding was a new frontier. Now, regulation is totally providing credibility to the industry, and the only thing that keeps me up at night is making sure our compliance team is up to speed on each and every state's compliance requirements. It takes a lot of resources and can create those headaches at times, but states are now giving us a privilege to service their consumers, and it is our job to ensure we are doing everything perfectly. Being a part of ARC and seeing what Eric Schuller has done for consumer funding throughout the country — going state to state in passing advantageous regulations — has been very inspiring. I am excited about building off of this in even more states in the future, despite the obstacles.

I do have one thing I would like to see, and that is getting a federal contract or guideline for litigation funding. With the nationalization of technology, it really makes more sense that there is one standard federal contract that works for all. That would remove a lot of those headaches.

Looking ahead, where do you see the biggest growth opportunities in consumer legal funding over the next three to five years, and how is Legal Bay positioning itself to compete against both the large institutional funders moving downstream and the smaller shops still brokering deals?

As the US population grows, more lawsuits are coming into the system and the backlog of cases each year grows. So the market breadth is growing, and that trend will continue. Additionally, I see a huge market in commercial funding for small to medium-sized deals — that is a market that is greatly underserved and something that Legal-Bay is working on specifically to develop that product further. Also, with the advent of better technology — AI, smart phones, and medical science — cases are much easier to be made based on strong liability and sciences. So it is becoming harder for defense teams to fight clear and convincing evidence or proof. Legal-Bay has prided itself on investigating emerging litigations in mass torts and being the first funder in, and we see this as a leg up for us in competing against the best in the future as well.

John Lopes is a market-leading bank executive and recognized authority in financial solutions for the plaintiff-side legal industry. As Senior Managing Director and Head of Specialized Legal Banking at First Horizon Bank, he leads a national platform focused on delivering capital, deposit, and technology solutions to contingency-based law firms, mass tort practices, claims administrators, and Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs).

John began his career over 20 years ago advising AM Law firms, building a strong foundation in traditional legal banking and developing deep expertise in the operational and financial dynamics of large defense-side practices. He later held leadership roles at institutions including Citibank, Wells Fargo, and Western Alliance Bank, where he managed significant portfolios, built high-performing teams, and executed strategic growth initiatives across the legal vertical.

Over a decade ago, John identified a critical gap in the market and shifted his focus to the plaintiff side of the bar—where firms face unique challenges related to contingent revenue, cash flow volatility, and complex settlement structures. Since then, he has become a trusted advisor to many of the nation's leading plaintiff law firms and ecosystem partners, structuring sophisticated credit facilities, supporting billions of dollars in settlement flows, and delivering innovative banking solutions across the full lifecycle of litigation.

John is known for his ability to bridge capital, technology, and legal strategy—partnering with law firms, claims administrators, and litigation finance providers to drive growth, enhance liquidity, and create operational efficiency at scale. Through his leadership, he continues to position First Horizon as a premier banking partner to the plaintiff bar, bringing institutional-grade capabilities to a rapidly evolving segment of the legal industry.

He holds a background in financial markets from Yale University and has continued to build on that foundation through executive education with the Yale School of Management.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with John Lopes:

What gaps in the settlement and mass tort landscape led you to build a dedicated Settlement Services platform?

Historically, most banks approached settlement accounts as transactional escrow relationships rather than as a specialized vertical requiring tailored infrastructure. As mass tort and class action settlements have grown in size and complexity, that model became insufficient.

We saw several structural gaps:

• Lack of dedicated infrastructure for high-volume sub-accounting and audit transparency
• Limited understanding of QSF governance, fiduciary responsibilities, and multi-party oversight
• Manual disbursement processes that created inefficiencies and risk
• Inflexible credit solutions for contingency firms managing large case inventories

We built our Specialty Legal Banking group to address those gaps holistically — combining dedicated settlement banking, digital sub-accounting, modern disbursement capabilities, and tailored financing solutions under one coordinated platform.

Rather than treating settlements as ancillary deposits, we treat them as a highly specialized ecosystem requiring neutrality, transparency, and purpose-built technology.

Courts increasingly demand transparency and auditability. How do you see expectations evolving around reporting and fiduciary accountability?

Expectations are rising meaningfully. Judges and special masters now expect:

• Real-time visibility into balances
• Clear segregation of funds at the claimant or fee level
• Transparent interest allocation methodologies
• Clean audit trails across every transaction

In complex QSFs, accountability is no longer theoretical — it must be demonstrable.

We've responded by building a platform that allows structured sub-accounting at scale, defined user permissions (analyst vs. approver roles), exportable audit logs, and reporting that aligns with court oversight requirements.

The future standard will be near real-time transparency, not quarterly reconciliation. Specialized banks must offer specialized infrastructure to the settlement process — not just holding funds.

What are the most significant fraud or AML risks facing settlement administrators today, and how can institutions mitigate them without slowing distributions?

The scale and speed of modern distributions introduce new risk vectors:

• Synthetic identity and claimant impersonation
• Payment redirection and ACH fraud
• Social engineering attacks targeting administrators
• Sanctions and cross-border payment compliance risk

The key is not adding friction — but adding intelligent controls. Financial institutions must offer:

• Multi-layer payment verification protocols
• OFAC and sanctions screening at both onboarding and disbursement
• Segregated user permissions and dual-approval workflows
• Positive pay and transaction monitoring services

Technology should accelerate payments while reducing exposure. The answer is not slowing distributions — it's modernizing controls around them.

Claimants now expect faster access to funds and more flexibility in how they receive payments. How is innovation reshaping the claimant experience?

The claimant experience is evolving dramatically.

Traditional paper checks are increasingly insufficient. Claimants now expect options — ACH, prepaid cards, digital wallets, and other electronic modalities — delivered quickly and securely.

Real-time rails and digital disbursement platforms are reshaping expectations around:

• Speed
• Choice
• Transparency of payment status

At the same time, the institution must provide tools so that flexibility coexists with compliance and oversight.

The institutions that succeed will be those that can offer multiple payment modalities within a controlled, audit-ready environment. That's where innovation truly adds value — not just convenience, but structured efficiency.

As litigation finance and aggregate settlements continue to grow, what role should specialized settlement banks play in reinforcing neutrality and trust?

As capital flows increase in mass tort and aggregate litigation, neutrality becomes even more critical. A specialized settlement bank must function as a stabilizing counterparty amid multi-party financial arrangements. In large aggregate settlements — especially where litigation finance is involved — clarity around control, reporting, and fee segregation becomes paramount.

Our role is not to influence outcomes, but to provide a compliant, transparent, and scalable platform that reinforces trust across all stakeholders: plaintiffs' firms, defense counsel, administrators, courts, and capital providers.

Ultimately, trust in the settlement process depends on financial infrastructure that is purpose-built for complexity — and governed by strong compliance standards.