Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
  • An LFJ Conversation with Thomas Bell, Founder of Fenaro
Community Spotlights

Member Spotlight: Julian Coleman

By Julian Coleman |
August 14, 2024

Member Spotlight: 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
Commercial

Court of Appeal’s First UPC Panel Draws Attention from Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

Litigation insurers and third-party funders across Europe are closely monitoring the first case heard by a newly constituted panel of the Unified Patent Court’s Court of Appeal, as the matter could offer early signals on how appellate judges will approach procedural and cost-related issues in the UPC system. The case, Syntorr v. Arthrex, is the inaugural appeal to be considered by the third Court of Appeal panel, making it an important early data point for stakeholders assessing litigation risk in the young court.

An article in JUVE Patent explains that the appeal arises from a dispute over European patent rights and follows contested proceedings at the Court of First Instance. While the substantive patent issues are central to the case, the appeal has attracted particular interest from insurers and funders because of its potential implications for security for costs and the treatment of insurance arrangements in UPC litigation. These questions are of direct relevance to how litigation risk is underwritten and financed, especially in cross-border patent disputes where exposure can be significant.

The establishment of additional appeal panels is itself a sign of the UPC’s increasing caseload, and early rulings from these panels will play a key role in shaping expectations around procedural consistency and predictability. For funders, clarity on whether and how courts scrutinise insurance coverage, funding structures, and security applications is critical when deciding whether to deploy capital into UPC matters. Insurers, meanwhile, are watching closely to see how appellate judges view policy wording, anti-avoidance provisions, and the extent to which coverage can be relied upon to satisfy cost concerns raised by opposing parties.

Although no substantive appellate guidance has yet emerged from this first hearing, the case underscores how closely financial stakeholders are tracking the UPC’s evolution. Even procedural decisions at the appellate level can have downstream effects on pricing, structuring, and appetite for funding complex patent litigation.

For the legal funding industry, the UPC Court of Appeal’s early jurisprudence may soon become a reference point for risk assessment, influencing both underwriting practices and investment strategies in European IP disputes.

Commercial

UK Government Signals Funding Crackdown in Claims Sector Reform

By John Freund |

The UK government has signalled a renewed regulatory focus on the claims management and litigation funding sectors, as part of a broader effort to curb what it characterises as excessive or speculative claims activity. The move forms part of a wider review of the consumer redress and claims ecosystem, with third-party funding increasingly drawn into policy discussions around cost, transparency, and accountability.

An article in Solicitor News reports that ministers are examining whether litigation funding and related financial arrangements are contributing to an imbalance in the claims market, particularly in mass claims and collective redress actions. While litigation funding has historically operated outside the scope of formal regulation in England and Wales, policymakers are now considering whether additional oversight is required to protect consumers and defendants alike. This includes potential scrutiny of funding agreements, funder returns, and the role of intermediaries operating between claimants, law firms, and capital providers.

The renewed attention comes amid political pressure to rein in what critics describe as a growing “claims culture,” with the government keen to demonstrate action ahead of future legislative reforms. Industry stakeholders have cautioned, however, that overly restrictive measures could limit access to justice, particularly in complex or high-cost litigation where claimants would otherwise be unable to pursue meritorious claims. Litigation funders have long argued that their capital plays a stabilising role by absorbing risk and enabling legal representation in cases involving significant power imbalances.

While no formal proposals have yet been published, the article suggests that funding models linked to claims management companies may face particular scrutiny, especially where aggressive marketing or fee structures are perceived to undermine consumer interests. Any regulatory changes would likely build on existing reforms affecting claims management firms and contingency-style legal services.

Case Developments Commercial

Litigation Lending Funds Woolworths Shareholder Class Action

By John Freund |

Litigation Lending Services Limited has agreed to fund a large-scale shareholder class action against Woolworths Group Ltd, adding another high-profile Australian securities claim to the growing docket of funded investor litigation. The proceeding has been filed in the Federal Court of Australia by Dutton Law and focuses on Woolworths’ alleged failure to properly disclose the financial impact of widespread employee underpayments over a lengthy period.

Litigation Lending's website notes that the claim covers shareholders who acquired Woolworths shares between 26 February 2010 and 8 September 2025. It alleges that Woolworths did not adequately record and account for employee entitlements owed to salaried staff, resulting in financial statements that understated expenses and overstated profits. According to the pleadings, these accounting issues had the effect of artificially inflating Woolworths’ share price, causing losses to investors once the extent of the underpayments began to emerge through company disclosures.

Woolworths has previously acknowledged underpayment issues across its workforce, announcing remediation programs and provisions running into the hundreds of millions of dollars. The class action contends that the company’s disclosures came too late and failed to provide the market with an accurate picture of its true financial position during the relevant period. Investors who purchased shares while the alleged misstatements were in place are now seeking compensation for losses suffered when the share price adjusted.

Participation in the class action is open to eligible shareholders on a no-cost basis, with Litigation Lending covering the legal costs of running the claim. Any funding commission or reimbursement payable to the funder would be subject to approval by the court, consistent with Australia’s regulatory framework for funded class actions.