Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Bill Alessi, Founder & CEO, Alpha Modus
  • Burford Fires Opening Salvo Against Senate Tax Hike
Community Spotlights

Member Spotlight: Julian Coleman

By Julian Coleman |

With a background in Physics, Engineering and Software, Julian Coleman has 30+ years’ experience at the COO level conceiving new products and leading the project management, system design, engineering, software development, manufacturing, compliance and delivery teams.

Company Name and Description: 10th Mind is an e-discovery company that has been created with a major focus on innovation, not only for general e-discovery activities but in particular to assist litigation funds to overcome their specific challenges and threats  –  a special approach demanding a change of mindset.

Our name reflects our focus on innovation and is derived from the intelligence community – the Tenth Man principle. It requires that, where a group of ten analysts is working on the same data and nine of the group reach the same conclusion, it is the duty of the 10th person, the 10th Mind, to examine the issue on the premise that the other nine are wrong.

The ‘group think’ consensus may be right most of the time, or even mostly right all of the time, but tends to favour business as usual. The 10th Mind is there to challenge the consensus view and proffer different solutions.

10th Mind has defined (and addressed) four key areas:

  • Costs – there is in our view an increasing understanding that costs must be reduced
  • Process management and recording – not only does a very efficient process drive costs down, but it can (and must) include extensive record keeping of the entire process in order to support effective litigation
  • Technology will play an ever increasing role
  • Litigation Funds – a rapidly expanding market both in terms of finance available and in market sectors, funds are naturally focused on profit, a critical part of their business being case selection – and costs are a major factor here too. Funds have their own challenges, but also are having a significant impact on the wider litigation landscape.

Addressing these issues has been very interesting. As a seasoned C level executive it has been interesting to analyse and then dispense with so much convention. A business structured around what is today rather than yesterday can look very different and cost far less whilst being intrinsically more responsive and adaptable. In terms of what we can do, having no legacy structures to worry about has major benefits which transfer to the client:

  • Costs are reduced.  Many expensive overheads can be dispensed with.
  • We have developed our own project management and recording systems; based on PRINCE2 and facilitated by our unique software, integrated with selected new commercial products, management processes are vastly improved. Full traceable record keeping and transparency are built in and automated, essentially at zero cost.
  • …and finally but crucially, 10th Mind will work with funds on special terms:
    • if the fund is prepared to take on a case we will work on a CFA basis
    • we will also work with the fund on a CFA basis to undertake early stage investigations, in our view crucial to improving the evidence on which to base case selection and ultimately, therefore, profitability.

At 10th Mind we are convinced that not only is such an approach necessary now, but there will be ever-present forces driving the need for continued evolution:

Costs are becoming a major issue.  Significant concern has emerged in the English litigation funding community over last year’s Paccar judgement. Omni Bridgeway’s Co-chief Information Officer, Matt Harrison, has said that some litigation funders may not survive the economic instability as “they don’t have the money available to them to invest in cases and in law firms.”  Bloomberg Law also recently noted that some litigation funds are currently facing financial difficulty.

Burford, one of the biggest litigation funds in the world and which describes itself as “the institutional quality finance firm focused on law“, undertook surveys from which they report:

“[Over half of respondents to its poll] (52%) say drastic steps are needed to better manage legal costs, such as moving away from the billable hour, limiting outside firms and more innovation from outside counsel.“

and

“Finance and legal professionals agree: the legal department’s top priority for the next 15 years is to minimize legal costs. But they are also unified in prioritizing that the legal department simultaneously find new ways to recover value.“

It is clear there is a consensus that costs, specifically cost reduction, must be considered, and in our view, litigation funds will be a driving force.

Litigation funds have a very different focus from law firms, crucially they exist to make profits and that means winning cases, which in turn places a focus on the initial assessment stage.  And, as previously observed, the sector is expanding both in terms of available funds and in scope, driving change and posing challenges for dispute litigation as a whole. 

Logically as funding takes over a larger percentage of dispute litigation, the greater the overall impact this will have on costs. Arguably as saturation approaches, such pressures can only increase.

Process management and recording is in our view now essential, not merely tracking the ingestion and processing of data from collection to court, but the recording of all the management processes which defined the data management: who did what, when and why, recorded in forensic detail. This not only, if done well, improves business processes but it evidences them should legal challenges arise. Hence this data must be ‘forensics ready’.

Technology can and will help. But it must be the right technology which assists the first two objectives, ie improving practises whilst reducing costs. Having found critical gaps in commercial offerings, we have worked on our own solution.

Website: www.10thMind.com

Founded: 2023

Headquarters: UK (London)

Member Quote: We feel it crucial that providers must always question the legacy thinking and structures that entrench lack of efficiency, accuracy, and high costs.  By applying the 10th Mind principle, we are providing services in a new way: shared risk, formal (and unique) project management and software, along with specialised services specifically to assist funds combine to make us, to our knowledge, unique in the e-discovery sector.

If you would like to find out more as to how we can assist you and your clients, we would be delighted to meet you. Please contact us through our website (www.10thmind.com) or email our COO directly at julian.coleman@10thmind.com.

About the author

Julian Coleman

Julian Coleman

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.