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 Wieger Wielinga, Managing Director of Enforcement and EMEA, Omni Bridgeway

By John Freund |
January 7, 2025

An LFJ Conversation with Wieger Wielinga, Managing Director of Enforcement and EMEA, Omni Bridgeway

Wieger Wielinga is responsible for Omni Bridgeway’s investment origination in (sovereign) awards and judgments globally and its litigation funding efforts both in EMEA and the UK.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Wieger.

You have been working in the funding industry for over 25 years and are the president of ELFA. In that capacity you are at the forefront of discussion about regulating funding. Can you provide a short summary of the status of the regulatory discussion in the EU at this moment?

Perhaps the starting point here is to understand who wants regulation and why. It appears to Omni Bridgeway that a clear formulation of the perceived problems, and who would benefit from solving them, should take place before moving to the question of solutions and whether regulation is part of that.

Some of the more understandable concerns that were raised as our industry was developing and gaining spotlight over the past years concerned (i) potential conflicts of interest which could unintendedly occur if arbitrators are not aware who is funding one of the parties and perhaps to some extent (ii) the financial standing of funders and their ability to cover their financial obligations.

The issue of conflict of interest is solved by all institutions nowadays requiring disclosure of funders and the issue of financial standing has been tackled by funders associations obliging their members with respect to capital adequacy and audited accounts etcetera. See for istance https://elfassociation.eu/about/code-of-conduct.

Powerful industries like big tech, pharma, and tobacco have faced successful claims from parties who would never have succeeded without the backing of a funder.  That rebalancing of powers appears to have triggered efforts to undermine the rise of the litigation funding industry. Arguments used in the EU regulatory discussion against funding include suggestions on the origin of the capital and principal aims of the funders, often referring to funders coming from the US or “Wall Street”. It is not a proper argument but opponents know a subset of the EU constituency is sensitive to the predatory undertone it represents.

So the suggestion that Litigation Funding is a phenomenon blowing over from the US or at least outside the EU is misleading?

Indeed. What many don’t realize is that litigation funding was well established as a practice for over a decade on the European continent without any issues before UK funders started to become established. Some funders, like Germany’s Foris AG, were publicly listed, while others emerged from the insurance sector, such as Roland Prozessfinanz and later Allianz Prozessfinanz. At Omni Bridgeway, we have been funding cases since the late 1980s, often supporting European governments with subrogation claims tied to national Export Credit Agencies and since the turn of the century arbitrations and collective redress cases. So it does not come “from” the US, or Australia or the UK. It has been already an established practice since the early 90s of the last century, with reputable clients, government entites, as well as multi nationals and clients from the insurance and banking industry.

Only later, as of around 2007, we witnessed the entry of more serious capital with the entry of US and UK litigation funders. Only as of that moment, questions came about champerty and maintenance issues and in its slipstream, a call for regulation and the abovementioned narrative started being pushed.

Another related misunderstanding is the size and growth of the litigation funding industry. It is in my view often overstated. In absolute terms, it remains small compared to other high-risk asset classes like private equity or venture capital. Sure, it is a growing industry and good funders have interesting absolute returns to provide its institutional LPs whilst doing societal good, especially in the growing ESG litigation space, but one should be suspicious of parties that speak of a “hedge fund mecca” or similar incorrect exaggerations.

So what about the actual risk for frivolous or abusive litigation by or due to litigation funders?

We are in the business of making a return on our investments. Because our financing is non-recourse (unlike a loan) we only make a return if the matters we invest in are won and paid out. Whether there is a win is determined by courts and arbitrators and as such out of our hands but you will understand we put in a lot of time and effort to review matters and determine their likelihood of success. Any matter that makes it through our rigorous underwriting process is objectively worth pursuing and is unlikely to be frivolous. That does not mean all matters we invest in are sure winners, but these are matters that deserve the opportunity to be heard and very often our funding is the only way in which that is possible.

So, in response to the argument of abusive litigation I would put the argument of access to justice. It is not uncommon for legal fees in relatively straightforward commercial matters to exceed EUR 1 million, let alone the adverse cost exposure. If we want a society where the size of your bank account isn’t the only determining factor for whether you can pursue your rights, we have to accept funding as a fact of life.

A related argument that continues to be recycled by the opponents of TPLF is that funded party’s need protection against the funders pricing and /or control over the litigation. This is also a misconception, for which there is zero empirical basis. After all these years of funding in the EU, thousands of funded cases, there are no cases where a court or tribunal has indeed decided a funder acted abusively, neither in general nor in this particular respect. This is partly because the interests between funder and funded party are typically well aligned. Off course there is always a slight potential for interests starting to deviate between client and funder with the passage of time, as in all business relationships. These deviations in interest are, however, almost never unforeseeable, and typically as “what ifs” addressed in advance in the funding agreements. Both parties voluntarily enter these agreements and accept their terms. Nobody is forced to sign a funding agreement.

That may be true, but how about consumers, who may be less sophisticated users of litigation funding?

A fair question. However, there are two other realities as well: First, there is already a plethora of consumer protecting rules codified in EU directives and national legislation of member states.[1] Second, consumers tend not to be the direct, individual, clients of third-party litigation funders, as they almost always end up being represented by professional consumer organizations, who in turn have ample legal representation and protect the interest of their claimant group.

Interestingly the European Consumer Organization BEUC has just published their view on litigation funding in a report “Justice unchained | BEUC’s view on third party litigation funding for collective redress”. The summary is crystal clear: “Third party litigation funding has emerged as a solution to bridge a funding gap” and “provides substantial benefits to claimant organisations”. Also: “Assessment of TPLF needs to be evidenced by specific cases.” And “The potential risks related to TPLF for collective redress are already addressed by the Representative Action Directive.”  It concludes by saying “additional regulation of TPLF at EU level should be considered only if it is necessary.”  See https://www.beuc.eu/position-papers/justice-unchained-beucs-view-third-party-litigation-funding-collective-redress.

So what do you think will be the ultimate outcome of the regulatory discussion in the EU and will this impact the Funding market in the EU?

So, in summary, when it comes to European regulation, Europe knows that it is crucial to focus on fostering a competitive environment where innovation thrives, accountability is upheld, and access to justice is ensured. This all requires financial equality between parties, ensuring a level playing field. The EC cannot make policies on the basis of an invented reality, of created misunderstandings. That is why the mapping exercise was a wise decision. We should expect regulation, if any, will not be of a prohibitive nature and hence we do not see an adverse impact to the funding market.

In the meantime, there is this patchwork of implementations of the EU Directive on Representative Actions for the Protection of Consumer Rights. Will funders and investors be hesitant to participate in the EU?

Indeed the EC has left implementation of the directive to the member states and that leads to differences. In some jurisdictions funders will have large reservations to fund a case under the collective regime and in other jurisdictions it will be fine. This is best illustrated by comparison of the implementation in The Netherlands and the one in Germany.

The Dutch opt out regime under the WAMCA rules allows a qualified entity to pursue a litigation on behalf of a defined group of consumers with court oversight on both what is a qualified entity, its management board, the way it is funded and how the procedure is conducted.  Over 70 cases have been filed now in the WAMCA’s short history. The majority of those cases concern matters with an exclusively idealistic goal by the way. Although there is clearly an issue with duration, as it typically takes over 2 years before standing is addressed, the Dutch judiciary is really trying to facilitate and improve the process. Any initial suspicion of the litigation funders is also coming to an end now the industry has demonstrated that its capital comes from normal institutional investors, its staff from reputable law firms or institutions and IRRs sought are commensurate to the risk of non recourse funding. Once the delays are addressed with the first guiding jurisprudence, the process will probably be doing more or less what it is supposed to do. Almost all cases funded under the WAMCA have an ESG background by the way.

By contrast, Germany chose to “implement” the EU Representative action directive by adopting an opt-in system. It too is meant for qualified entities, but it is questionable whether it fulfills the purpose intended by the European Commission. The issue which makes it rather unsuitable for commercial cases is that the funder’s entitlement is capped at ten percent (sic!) of the proceeds from the class action at penalty of dismissal. Here it seems the lobby has been successful. No funder can fund a case under that regime on a non-recourse basis.

So does that mark the end of Germany as a market for funding collective actions and what does it hold for other member states?

No, in practice it means cases will not be financed under this regime. Funders will continue funding matters as they have in the past, avoiding the class action regime of 13 October 2023.  It should serve as a warning though for other member states where discussions are ongoing concerning the implementation of the representative action directive, such as Spain.  Indeed it would have been better if the EC would have given clear guidelines towards a more harmonized set of collective actions regimes throughout Europe.

[1] See, for instance, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, “Unfair Commercial practices (National        Reports)”          (November            2005),  available           at: https://www.biicl.org/files/883_national_reports_unfair_commercial_practices_new_member_states%5Bwi th_dir_table_and_new_logo%5D.pdf. See also, EY “Global Legal Commercial Terms Handbook 2020” (October 2020), available at: https://www.eylaw.be/wp-content/uploads/publications/EY-Global-Legal- Commercial-Terms-Handbook.pdf. Furter, the Belgian Code of Economic Law defines an “abusive clause” as “any term or condition in a contract between a company and a consumer which, either alone or in combination with one or more other terms or conditions, creates a manifest imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer”; such clause is prohibited, null, and void (Article VI.84 Belgian Code of Economic Law). Article 36 of the Danish Contracts Act stipulates that agreement can be set aside if they are unreasonable or unfair. Article L.442-1 of the French Commercial Code (applicable to commercial contracts) prohibits significant imbalance provisions, such as a clause that results in one party being at an unfair disadvantage or disproportionately burdened as compared to the other party. Section 242 of the German Civil Code also obliges the parties to abide by the principle of good faith an

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

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.