Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Jason Levine, Partner at Foley & Lardner LLP
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial People Moves

Nera Capital Kicks Off 2025 with Ambitious Recruitment Drive

By John Freund |
February 5, 2025

Nera Capital Kicks Off 2025 with Ambitious Recruitment Drive

Leading litigation finance firm Nera Capital is bolstering its already flourishing team, with several senior hires. A new In-House General Counsel, Managing Director of Commercial Claims Division and Financial Controller are currently being recruited to bolster the management team with new experienced talent.

In addition, the firm has already acquired a new financial analyst and the firm’s audit team is also branching out, with new hires expected to join its Manchester and Dublin offices.  Nera’s success comes after a period of sustained growth in the litigation finance market.

Director of Nera Capital Aisling Byrne shared her thoughts on the expanding team: 

“At Nera Capital, we believe that strong leadership and diverse talent are the cornerstones of our success. We don’t just work together – we grow together. Nera Capital is a place where passion, strategy, and collaboration meet, creating an environment where every team member can thrive and make a meaningful impact. I’m very proud of what we’ve achieved so far. Our expansion isn’t just about numbers – it’s about nurturing a vibrant culture of collaboration and innovation that empowers us to take major steps forward in the litigation finance space.”

The firm ended the year on an undoubtable high with the introduction of its Access to Justice Fund to assist those in need of legal assistance or financial support. 

In yet another successful funding deal, Nera also managed to procure a further $25 million to boost UK consumer protection claims and ensure increased access to justice for individuals seeking redress. The firm also recently announced the opening of its Dutch office in Amsterdam as it takes on more work in the Netherlands, adding to its locations in Dublin and Manchester. 

Aisling added: “With every fresh perspective we welcome, we are igniting a powerful movement in litigation finance – one driven by passion, purpose, and an unwavering dedication to ensuring that justice is within reach for all.

“Together, we will continue to push boundaries and redefine what’s possible in litigation finance. But most importantly, we will continue to make a difference and increase access to justice for all.

She added: “I’d like to thank our amazing team and partners in the UK, US and across Europe for greatly contributing to our success. We look forward to what the future holds.” 

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial Legal Innovation

LSC Showcases Access-to-Justice Tech at San Antonio ITC

By John Freund |

The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) brought the access-to-justice conversation squarely into the technology arena with its 26th annual Innovations in Technology Conference (ITC), held this week in San Antonio. Drawing nearly 750 registered attendees from across the legal, business, and technology communities, the conference highlighted how thoughtfully deployed technology can expand civil legal assistance for low-income Americans while maintaining ethical and practical guardrails.

Legal Services Corporation reports that this year’s ITC convened attorneys, legal technologists, court staff, pro bono leaders, academics, and students at the Grand Hyatt San Antonio River Walk for three days of programming focused on the future of legal services delivery. The conference featured 56 panels—16 streamed online and freely accessible—covering topics ranging from artificial intelligence and cybersecurity to court technology, data-driven decision-making, and pro bono innovation.

LSC President Ron Flagg framed the event as a collaborative effort to ensure technology serves people rather than replaces human judgment. Emphasizing that technology is “not the answer by itself,” Flagg underscored its role as a critical tool when grounded in the real needs of communities seeking civil legal help. The conference opened with a keynote from journalist and author David Pogue, setting the tone for candid discussions about both the promise and limitations of emerging technologies.

A notable evolution this year was the introduction of five structured programming tracks—AI beginner, AI advanced, IT operations, client intake, and self-help tools—allowing attendees to tailor their experience based on technical familiarity and organizational needs. The event concluded with hands-on workshops addressing cybersecurity incident response, improving AI accuracy and reliability, change management for staff resilience, and user experience evaluation in legal tech.

Beyond the conference itself, ITC reinforced LSC’s broader leadership in access-to-justice technology, including its Technology Initiative Grants, AI Peer Learning Lab, and its recent report, The Next Frontier: Harnessing Technology to Close the Justice Gap. Senior program officer Jane Ribadeneyra emphasized the dual focus on informed leadership decisions and practical tools that directly support frontline legal services staff handling matters like eviction, domestic violence, and disaster recovery.

For the litigation funding and legal finance community, ITC’s themes highlight a growing intersection between technology, access to justice, and capital deployment—raising questions about how funders may increasingly support tech-enabled legal service models alongside traditional case funding.

Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.