Trending Now
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Michael Kelley, Partner, Parker Poe

Parker Poe traces its roots to 1884, when it was founded by a future North Carolina Supreme Court justice. In the early 1950s, World War II veterans Francis Parker and Bill Poe became partners. Their names and commitment to public service have been part of the fabric of the firm ever since.

‘LFJ Conversations’ is an original content series produced by the editorial team at Litigation Finance Journal and featuring the leading thought leaders from throughout the global litigation finance community.’

For more than a century, Parker Poe has represented many of the Southeast’s largest companies and local governments in transactions, regulatory issues, and complex litigation. The business law firm has more than 250 attorneys serving clients from eight offices in Charlotte and Raleigh, North Carolina; Charleston, Columbia, Greenville, and Spartanburg, South Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; and Washington DC. Parker Poe uses a cross-disciplinary, collaborative approach to provide comprehensive solutions to their clients.

What led you to make the move to Litigation Finance?

My move to Litigation Finance was coincidental. In 2012, a litigation funder retained me to assist with the structuring and formation of its second international fund. Shortly after, they offered me the opportunity to work on all their litigation funding transactional work. In the past ten years, my litigation funding practice has grown exponentially, representing over 90% of my professional time.

Litigation funding allows me to practice and use both areas of my background in finance and law. Moreover, the bespoke nature of litigation finance transactions requires creativity to achieve the right mix of aligned incentives for all parties involved in the transaction.

I appreciate this remarkable opportunity to foster the growth of and to help define this maturing asset class. And I love working with all my clients, whether they are litigation funders, law firms, or claimants.

How does your experience in non-profits and social impact investments inform your work in Litigation Finance?

People frequently ask me about the corporate-related work I rely on for structuring litigation finance transactions. More than M&A, I rely on my investment funds formation background for finding creative solutions to unique structuring challenges. I have especially drawn on my work with social impact investment funds and transactions.

For example, I have created mini-funds of pooled capital that play a first-loss capital tranche role, providing those investors an opportunity for out-size return while paving the way for raising traditional litigation finance. Traditional litigation funders have appreciated having that first-loss cushion to mitigate the risk of loss on their investment (a form of insurance). For the funded party, the first-loss pooled capital tranche unlocked the door to receive an aggregate of $60 million for financing a portfolio of claims. I have also drawn on my fund formation work for structuring innovative waterfall structures to balance incentives among participants in the litigation funding transaction.

Can you talk about the interplay between Litigation Funding and social justice?

It is often cliche that litigation funding provides access to justice. However, every day I see highly meritorious claims that would otherwise not be able to be advanced but for litigation finance. I have seen this in individual claims and portfolios of claims across a wide range of cases, including intellectual property, international arbitration, corporate disputes, and, of course, in the personal injury and mass tort space.

Money alone should not be the sole barrier to pursuing meritorious claims. Litigation Finance helps level the financial playing field for claims prosecution/monetization.

How do you think GCs can be convinced to utilize Litigation Funding?

I was a GC for over 17 years and wish I had access to litigation finance during that time. The value proposition for GCs and in-house legal departments is clear: legal claims are assets that can and should play a vital role in a company’s financial health and growth. Litigation finance permits GCs to turn dormant claims or claims they cannot otherwise pursue due to financial budgets into sources of revenue.

Instead of in-house legal teams being viewed solely as cost centers, those departments can become revenue and profit centers for the companies without adding any additional legal risk to the company. In addition, the GCs can become heroes inside their companies! I would even go so far as to say that GCs not taking advantage of litigation funding to pursue their company’s claims are not acting responsibly.

I would further argue the same for law firms who need to understand litigation funding and what it can do for law firm clients and build contacts in the industry to properly service law firm clients.

Michael P. Kelley, Partner, Parker Poe

Kelley is a thought leader in the industry with more than ten years of experience assisting US and International litigation funders, law firms, and claimants. He is one of Lawdragon’s “Top 10 Global Advisors in Litigation Finance” and a frequent speaker on key industry issues.

Kelly has over 25 years of experience in the legal finance industry. He is the former general counsel of EMP Global, overseeing $8 billion in assets across different investment funds in emerging markets.

He has a JD from Antonin Scalia School of Law, George Mason University, and a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and Political Sciences.

More LFJ Conversations

View All
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Juliana Giorgi, General Counsel for Latin America at Loopa Finance

By John Freund |
Juliana Giorgi Is a Colombian lawyer and holds a law degree from Spain, with postgraduate studies in international arbitration. She has over 15 years of experience in consulting, litigation, domestic and international arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Juliana Giorgi: Could you elaborate on Loopa Finance’s specific investment criteria when evaluating potential litigation and arbitration funding opportunities in Latin America and continental Europe? The first and foremost consideration in our investment decision-making process is to conduct a rigorous due diligence procedure aimed at maximizing the likelihood that the fund is making a sound investment.  To this end, we follow a two-tiered analysis process comprising both internal and external legal due diligence. The internal review is carried out by our in-house legal team, while the external review is conducted by top-tier law firms retained specifically for this purpose. During these due diligence phases, counsel will thoroughly review the case documentation and information provided by the claimant. To be eligible for funding, the case must meet the following minimum criteria:
  • Financial metrics: The amount of funding sought and the value of the claim must be reasonable and proportionate.
  • Duration: The maximum timeframe the fund is willing to wait for a return on its investment is five years.
  • Respondent’s solvency: There must be sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the opposing party has the financial capacity to satisfy a potential award.
  • Merits of the claim: The likelihood of success must be high, based on a legal and factual assessment.
How does Loopa Finance manage the risks associated with funding litigation and arbitration cases, particularly in regions with varying legal systems and enforcement mechanisms? Variability—and even instability—in legal systems is not necessarily a negative factor. On the contrary, it can be advantageous for the litigation funding industry, as it often leads to a higher volume of disputes, thereby generating a broader pool of investment opportunities. What is particularly noteworthy is that legal instability in a given country does not automatically translate into judicial instability or unpredictability in adjudication. In fact, while fluctuations in substantive law may lead to more disputes, the procedural rules and the competence of the adjudicating authorities often remain stable and reliable. This enables us to reasonably forecast litigation outcomes. That said, we recognize that external factors unrelated to the merits of a case may still influence its resolution. To mitigate such risks, our team includes highly trained and internationally experienced dispute resolution lawyers. This internal capability is further reinforced through the engagement of top-tier law firms to conduct independent due diligence, as previously outlined. Finally, we are fully aware that there are exceptional jurisdictions where the level of systemic instability makes outcome predictability unfeasible or where adverse rulings may result from extrinsic factors. In such cases, we simply refrain from investing in disputes arising in those jurisdictions. Since Loopa Finance operates with its own capital, how does this influence your investment strategy and decision-making process compared to firms that use external funding? Operating with our own capital allows us to act with greater agility and make swift investment decisions without relying on third parties, external processes, or outside funding sources. This autonomy is particularly valuable when participating in a “beauty contest” among funders. In such competitive processes—where multiple funds vie for the opportunity to finance a case—clients place a premium on the funder’s ability to respond quickly and decisively. The ability to independently negotiate commercial terms, assess client counteroffers, and move expeditiously through the decision-making process is critical. In this regard, Loopa holds a significant competitive advantage. What impact has Loopa Finance’s funding had on access to justice and the resolution of legal disputes in Latin America and continental Europe? Broadly speaking, our service has a significant social impact and contributes meaningfully to the administration of justice.  On the one hand, we provide the financial resources necessary for a party with a meritorious claim—who may otherwise lack the means to pursue it—to bring their case forward. In doing so, our involvement facilitates access to justice. On the other hand, our service promotes the principle of “equality of arms.” In many disputes, there may be a significant disparity in the financial capabilities of the parties. While the economically stronger party can afford to retain top-tier legal representation, the weaker party may not have such access. Litigation funding helps level the playing field, enabling both sides to secure high-caliber legal counsel and pursue the dispute on more equitable terms. Can you discuss any recent trends or developments in the litigation and arbitration funding landscape that are influencing Loopa Finance’s strategies and priorities? We are a technology-driven litigation fund with operations across Latin America and Europe. The fund has been active since 2019 and has experienced significant growth in recent years. As our operations expand, we have identified several key trends shaping the markets in which we operate: Market Growth Across Jurisdictions While there are substantial differences between the Latin American and European markets, we are seeing growth in both regions.
  • In Latin America, where the litigation funding industry is still in its early stages and claims tend to be smaller in value, we have observed increasing demand and a rising number of funding inquiries. We are funding more cases—particularly in the energy, mining, oil & gas, construction, and infrastructure sectors.
  • In Europe, our activity has increasingly shifted toward portfolio funding, which provides greater risk diversification and operational efficiency. We are also seeing the rise of hybrid funding structures, involving partnerships with insurers and specialized litigation finance products tailored to complex cases.
Moreover, there has been notable growth in environmental and consumer rights litigation, which amplifies the corporate accountability dimension of our portfolio and enhances the social impact of our investments. Integration of Technology and Artificial Intelligence As a technology-based fund, technology underpins every aspect of our operations. Our team includes not only lawyers but also software engineers who have developed a proprietary platform to support the fund’s end-to-end operations. This platform supports the commercial management of leads, case sourcing, and comprehensive case tracking, from legal analysis and economic structuring to contractual execution and post-investment monitoring. It features a wide range of functionalities and is under continuous development. We are consistently integrating advanced tools into the platform, including AI modules to support legal review, machine translation, and data analytics tools, all aimed at increasing the efficiency and accuracy of our case assessment and management processes.
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Bo Moss, President of Bridgehead Legal Capital

By John Freund |

Bo Moss is the Co-Founder and President of Bridgehead Legal Capital. A former litigator in Atlanta and Charlotte, Bo earned a reputation for being a tough but fair adversary. His deep understanding of the legal landscape led him to a Charlotte-based litigation funder, where he leveraged his litigation background to successfully underwrite and tailor loans for contingency fee law firms nationwide.

Since co-founding Bridgehead with Scott Richards and Megan Baer in 2021, Bo has spearheaded the company's mission to provide accessible capital to contingency fee lawyers. Under his leadership, Bridgehead has engaged in over 150 transactions, demonstrating his strategic vision and operational excellence. Bo is a graduate of The University of the South (Sewanee) and Samford University Cumberland School of Law.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Bo Moss:

Bridgehead Legal Capital emphasizes "Freedom Through Funding" and aims to be a long-term partner. Can you elaborate on how this mission guides your approach to client relationships and what specific long-term benefits firms can expect beyond just capital?

"Freedom Through Funding" isn't just a catchy phrase for us; it's the core of how we do business. As former litigators ourselves, we see every client relationship as a real partnership, all about helping you achieve sustained growth. So, beyond just giving you capital, here's what else firms gain:

  • Smart Advice: We share insights on things like case selection, portfolio management, and growth strategies, drawing directly from our own legal experience. This makes sure our funding acts as a real boost for well-thought-out, lasting expansion.
  • More Control: Our predictable capital gives your firm greater financial freedom. That means less pressure to settle cases too soon, the ability to invest in top-notch experts or the latest tech, and the capacity to take on more truly meritorious cases.
  • Better Portfolio Management: We work hand-in-hand with you to understand your entire case pipeline, helping you spot opportunities to leverage your existing assets for future growth.
  • We're Nimble and Responsive: We anticipate your evolving needs and quickly adapt, offering agile solutions that truly support your journey. We build relationships based on trust and a shared vision for success.

Your services include both Portfolio Loans and Asset Purchase Loans. For a small to mid-sized plaintiff law firm, how do you help them determine which product is the most advantageous for their specific financial needs and case pipeline?

Great question. When it comes to choosing between Portfolio Loans and Asset Purchase Loans, it really comes down to your firm's specific needs and what your case pipeline looks like. We don't do cookie-cutter solutions; instead, we go through a thorough, collaborative process:

  • What are Your Goals? We kick things off by figuring out what you're really trying to achieve – whether it's managing daily expenses, investing in marketing, funding a big, complex case, or growing your team.
  • Looking at Your Pipeline:
    • Portfolio Loans are usually best for firms with a diverse, ongoing stream of contingency cases. They let you tap into the collective value of your active cases, giving you consistent cash flow for general operations or bringing in new clients.
    • Asset Purchase Loans are a better fit if you have specific, high-value, well-developed cases. This lets you monetize a portion of the expected future recovery from that particular asset, giving you a bigger lump sum for targeted investments like major trial expenses.
  • Comfort with Risk: We'll chat about your comfort level with recourse and how different repayment structures fit your risk appetite.
  • Future Cash Flow: We'll project your future cash flow to show how each product impacts your financials, making sure the chosen solution genuinely helps your firm's health.

Ultimately, our job is to guide you in making a smart, strategic decision that truly aligns with your unique business model.

Bridgehead Legal Capital highlights its ability to unlock greater funding for plaintiff law firms by recognizing the value of their case portfolios. Could you explain the unique aspects of your underwriting process that allow you to assess and leverage these portfolios more effectively than traditional lenders?

Our ability to unlock more funding really comes down to our unique underwriting process, which is a big departure from traditional lenders who often just don't have our legal finance expertise:

  • Litigator-Led Due Diligence: This is huge for us. Since many on our team, including founders, are former litigators, we inherently understand case merits, legal strategy, and the practicalities of litigation. We analyze legal strengths, attorney experience, jurisdiction, and potential settlement ranges, letting us accurately evaluate the true value of a portfolio where others might only see uncertainty.
  • Our Own Valuation Models: We've built sophisticated, proprietary models that dig deep into factors specific to contingency fee litigation. This includes case type, complexity, damages assessment, jurisdictional nuances, and historical performance, allowing us to accurately value future earning potential.
  • Portfolio Diversification Analysis: We're really good at understanding the collective strength of an entire portfolio of cases. By looking at diversification by type, litigation stage, and estimated value, we see a more stable asset, which in turn allows us to offer more substantial funding.
  • Looking Forward: Unlike banks that often just look at past performance, we focus on the future earning potential of your active cases, assessing success probability and expected recovery.
  • Relationship-Based Assessment: Our underwriting isn't just numbers; it's also about understanding your firm's operational efficiency, management capabilities, and overall business strategy. This holistic view gives us a more complete picture of your firm's creditworthiness.

This unique blend of legal expertise, sophisticated modeling, and a forward-looking, relationship-based approach is what allows us to leverage your case portfolio so much more effectively than traditional lenders.

The website mentions categories of loans such as "Start-up," "Case Investments," and "Growth Loan." How do you tailor the terms and support for a start-up firm compared to an established firm seeking a growth loan?

We know a brand-new firm has totally different needs than an established one looking to expand. That's why we tailor our loan terms and support accordingly:

For Start-up Firms:

  • Terms: These loans are all about providing that essential working capital to get a solid foundation (think office space, tech, initial marketing, overhead). Repayment structures are often more flexible, maybe with interest-only periods or deferred principal payments, so you can focus on building your case pipeline. Our underwriting here really emphasizes your business plan, the founders' individual legal track records, and how viable your practice area is.
  • Support: As former litigators, we offer invaluable mentorship on building a practice, from getting clients to managing cases efficiently. We can also connect you with other professionals in our network and provide scalable funding solutions as your firm matures.

For Established Firms (Growth Loan):

  • Terms: These loans are primarily based on the proven value and predictable cash flow of your existing case portfolio, meaning much larger funding amounts are possible. With a solid track record, you'll typically qualify for more favorable interest rates and longer repayment periods. The terms are specifically designed to support your growth initiatives, whether that's expanding into new practice areas or acquiring another firm.
  • Support: We provide advanced analysis of your portfolio, helping you spot opportunities for greater efficiency and profitability. We offer data-driven market insights and can help brainstorm strategies for expansion. For complex growth plans, we can even structure customized financial solutions.

Our whole philosophy is about making sure you get the right capital at the right time, with the right level of tailored support, so your firm, no matter its stage, can hit its full potential.

 Given the fast approval process and funds typically delivered within two weeks, what are the key factors that contribute to this efficiency, and what advice would you give to firms to ensure a smooth and rapid funding experience?

Our quick approval process and getting funds to you within two weeks really comes down to our specialized focus and streamlined operations:

  • Specialized Expertise: We only do law firm financing. Our team can quickly and accurately assess legal assets without needing a ton of outside help. We just get the nuances.
  • Streamlined Due Diligence: We've developed a super efficient process that focuses only on the critical information. We know what we need, and we don't ask for extra paperwork. Our internal systems are built for fast data intake and analysis.
  • Agile Structure: As a private lender, we're simply less bureaucratic than big banks. That means quicker internal approvals and faster movement from your application to you actually receiving the funds.

To make sure your funding experience is as smooth and fast as possible, here's my best advice:

  • Be Prepared and Organized: Have your firm's financial statements (past 2-3 years) and a detailed list of your active contingency cases (type, stage, estimated value, deadlines, and expenses) all ready to go. The more organized you are, the faster we can move!
  • Know Your Needs: Clearly tell us exactly how much capital you need and what you plan to do with it. Saying something to us like “Well I am not entirely sure, maybe something in the range of _____” does not give us confidence that the firm has really spent the requisite amount of time properly reflecting upon their current and future funding needs and how our money is going to be used to assist in growing the firm.
  • Designate One Point Person: Pick one person at your firm to be our main contact. This really helps streamline communication.
  • Be Responsive: Our efficiency relies on your quick responses to any information requests or clarifications. The faster you get us what we need, the faster we can get you funded!

By partnering with Bridgehead Legal Capital, you're not just getting capital; you're gaining a strategic ally genuinely committed to your long-term success.

LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with John Hanley, Member, McDonald Hopkins Business Department

By John Freund |

John J. Hanley is a Member in the Business Department at McDonald Hopkins and a key contributor to the firm’s Litigation Finance Practice Group. He advises clients across the litigation finance ecosystem on the structuring, negotiation, and execution of complex funding arrangements and financial transactions. With more than 20 years of experience at leading law firms, John brings deep transactional expertise in first- and second-lien credit facilities, private placements, and the purchase and sale of loans, claims, and other illiquid assets.

His clients include litigation funders, specialty finance companies, business development corporations, hedge funds, CLO managers, SPVs, and other institutional investors. John’s practice bridges traditional lending and litigation finance, allowing him to deliver sophisticated, market-informed solutions that align legal risk with commercial strategy.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with John Hanley:

Your team is Chambers-ranked litigation finance deal counsel. How does that recognition reflect the value you bring to clients in structuring funding arrangements?

We appreciate the recognition from Chambers in a field as specialized and fast-moving as litigation finance. For us, that ranking affirms the trust our clients place in us to structure and close their transactions and the respect we’ve earned throughout the litigation finance ecosystem.

At McDonald Hopkins, we get deals done. We prioritize what matters by focusing on value, clarity, and results. Our approach is practical and efficient, guiding clients from NDA to term sheet to definitive documents and, finally, to funding with strategic precision.

You’ve worked extensively in both lending and litigation finance. How does that dual experience shape your approach to structuring deals that align interests across the table?

My lending background grounds me in negotiating and documenting deals designed to achieve client objectives while aligning incentives across counterparties. In litigation finance, those fundamentals still apply, but the environment is more nuanced. Every deal involves its own set of dynamics and considerations.

In lending, you have established credit models, conventional security packages, and repayment terms that follow predictable patterns. In litigation finance, we're operating in a space where deal inputs aren’t standardized. Each transaction is built on a unique case or portfolio, layered with legal, factual, and procedural complexities that defy one-size-fits-all modeling. That nuance demands creativity and precision. There's no single template that works for every matter.

At McDonald Hopkins, we recognize that underwriting is typically the funder’s responsibility. When representing funders, our primary role is to translate that underwriting into a legal structure that aligns with the deal’s risk profile and commercial objectives. From time to time we are also engaged to assist with due diligence on the underlying litigation to help ensure that the legal and procedural posture of the litigation supports the funder’s investment thesis.

When representing funded parties, whether claimants or their counsel, our focus shifts to protecting their upside, independence, and long-term position. That involves more than simply reviewing documents. We must understand how the funder views the case, the risk and return profile, and anticipate how the litigation may unfold. With that knowledge, we are equipped to negotiate terms that are fair, enforceable, and sustainable.

What are some of the key legal or regulatory pitfalls funders and claimants should be looking out for when drafting a funding agreement?

A few stand out:

  • Control: Excessive funder control can raise enforceability and ethical concerns. Decision-making authority must remain with the litigant in conjunction with their counsel. Overreach may implicate champerty or maintenance restrictions in jurisdictions where those doctrines are still active and may interfere with counsel’s duty of loyalty. Funders can and should monitor progress, but they shouldn’t steer litigation or settlement decisions. Of course, they can be a valuable sounding board.
  • Attorney-Client Privilege: Often underappreciated, this area can present serious risk. If privileged information is shared during diligence or monitoring, the NDA must preserve the common interest doctrine to try to avoid waiver. You can’t take shortcuts here.
  • Disclosure Risk: Courts and regulators are asking more questions, particularly in class actions, bankruptcies, and patent disputes. About 25% of U.S. federal district courts have local rules or standing orders requiring disclosure of third-party funding arrangements. Several states have enacted similar laws. These requirements vary by jurisdiction, so agreements should be drafted with the expectation that some level of disclosure may occur. Clarity, compliance, and defensibility are essential.
  • Intercreditor Issues: In deals involving multiple funders or creditors, agreements should clearly define repayment priority, enforcement rights in default, and how proceeds are allocated. Settlement decisions must remain with the claimant and their counsel, but funders may seek consultation on resolutions that could materially affect anticipated returns. Well-drafted intercreditor provisions help align expectations and reduce the risk of disputes after funding.
  • Proposed Tax Legislation: The “Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act” (S.1821), introduced by Senator Thom Tillis, would impose a 40.8% tax on profits earned by third-party funders. A revised 31.8% version appeared in the Senate’s draft of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” but was removed on June 30, 2025, after the Senate parliamentarian ruled it noncompliant with budget reconciliation rules.

While the tax is no longer part of active legislation, S.1821 remains under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee. If passed, it could apply retroactively to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025, with significant implications for deal pricing, structure, and tax treatment.

We’re advising clients to build flexibility into agreements, revisit tax allocation language, and monitor developments to preserve deal economics.

Are you seeing shifts in who’s seeking funding and how their expectations are evolving?

Absolutely. Litigation funding is no longer niche. Fortune 500 companies and smaller businesses alike are seeking funding, often because litigation costs weigh heavily on their income statements. Unlocking capital tied up in long-running cases enables companies to redirect resources toward growth, such as hiring, R&D, and strategic initiatives, or to retain preferred counsel.

Law firms have evolved as well. Firms that historically operated on a billable-hour model (think Am Law 200) are increasingly open to contingency fee arrangements, often pairing them with third-party funding to manage risk and liquidity. We’re also seeing firms across the spectrum, from personal injury powerhouses and mass tort firms to elite litigation boutiques, monetize contingency receivables to accelerate growth, improve liquidity, or shift risk. What was once a strategy for cash-constrained firms has become a strategic capital tool for practices with high-value, contingent assets.

Consumers of litigation funding are recognizing that underwriting litigation is not their core competency and that money spent on litigation could be better deployed.

Expectations today revolve around speed, transparency, and deal customization. Funders with boilerplate offerings or long diligence cycles are struggling to keep up.

Given all that evolution, how is the role of deal counsel changing in this ecosystem?

The role of deal counsel has become highly strategic. We’re not just papering deals; we’re shaping term sheets, negotiating funding mechanics, and managing multi-party dynamics to get complex transactions across the finish line.

Funders and funded parties (whether law firms, plaintiffs, or otherwise) rely on us to identify friction points early, design around them, and close with minimal disruption. That’s the role of modern deal counsel in litigation finance.

But some fundamentals remain unchanged…

Exactly. Litigation counsel must remain independent, and the fairness of the legal process must be preserved. Our role as deal counsel is to support that framework, not interfere with it.

The strongest litigation finance deals are built on clearly defined roles, aligned incentives, and mutual respect for legal boundaries. When those fundamentals are in place, both the transaction and the underlying litigation stand on solid ground.