Trending Now

“Show Me the Money” – Diverse Teams are a Revenue Driver and Not Just the Right Thing to Do

By Molly Pease |

“Show Me the Money” – Diverse Teams are a Revenue Driver and Not Just the Right Thing to Do

The following article was contributed by Kirstine Rogers, Legal Director at Certum Group, and Molly Pease, Managing Director at Curiam Capital.

Both are also on the steering committee for Women of Litigation Finance (WOLF). WOLF is an organization intended to give women in and around the litigation finance field a space for support, mentorship and connections. WOLF holds quarterly zoom meetings focused on specific relevant topics and hosts various networking events throughout the year.  Please find out more through our LinkedIn page or by contacting any member of the steering committee. WOLF welcomes the support and participation of all industry members. 

—

As our country continues to debate the pros and cons of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the government and private sectors, the litigation finance industry would be well served by remembering that diverse teams make companies better.  Indeed, several studies have explored the link between diversity initiatives and increased profitability in organizations and found that a more diverse workforce can positively impact business performance, innovation, and profitability.

There are many reasons for this.  First, representation matters.  Whether it is getting a phone call for a potential new investment opportunity from a female general counsel who wants to see diversity in the team she might be working with or being able to hire top talent who want to work with a diverse team, better opportunities present themselves to litigation finance market participants when those firms present a diverse and capable team.  Second, a diverse team allows for more diverse networking opportunities, which encourages investment opportunities from a wide variety of sources.  And finally, and potentially most importantly, diversity of backgrounds, skills, and expertise allows for a risk assessment in underwriting investment opportunities that is less likely to miss potential risks or pitfalls that a more narrow-minded team might not see.  Better underwriting decisions result in better investments, which results in more revenue for the company.

Diversity need not be a mandate for it to be an intentional and profitable choice.

“If you build it, they will come.” 

Does your company reflect the world of your counterparty or their counsel?  

Research has shown that consumers are more likely to buy from or engage with businesses that appear to understand their specific needs, often through shared demographic traits like race, gender, or age.  Businesses that reflect their target consumers’ characteristics and values are more likely to foster trust and client loyalty.   The same is true in commercial transactions with counterparties and their counsel.  In entering into a funding agreement, you are forming a potentially long-term partnership.  Communication and trust are essential to the success of that relationship.  You only maximize the likelihood of that success with the diversity of the decision makers on your team.   

Companies with inclusive environments are also more likely to attract top talent and retain employees.  Why wouldn’t a firm cast the widest net possible?

“Nobody puts baby in a corner.” 

Having a diverse workforce also increases opportunities for connection and visibility in the market.  It provides a vehicle for commonality – a shared experience, history, or perspective.  This is because similar backgrounds make it easier to communicate, share common goals, and find mutual interests, which in turn can lead to individual career opportunities and company-wide growth.

Diversity-based industry groups like the Women of Litigation Finance (WOLF) facilitate interaction between market peers, provide leadership and speaking opportunities, and lead to collaboration between companies seeking to work together.  Bar associations also frequently have smaller diversity-based committees that provide a smaller community from which to network and form connections.  Bigger fish. Smaller pond.  Stronger bond.  And these genuine connections formed on shared experiences can lead to exponential networking growth.  A familiar face at one industry event only leads to more familiar faces at the next one.  

This is true for thought leadership too.  If every member of a panel of speakers looks the same and does not reflect the different faces in the audience, there are people in that audience your panel is not reaching.  If every article is written from the same perspective, there are readers who are not listening.  

“You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” 

At its core, the litigation finance industry assesses risk.  The better a firm can do that – whether it is a funder, a broker, or an insurer – the more profitable it will be.  Risk assessment involves seeing things that others might miss and making sure no stone gets left unturned.  

There are many components of a due diligence risk assessment, including reviewing the strength of the legal merits of the claims, assessing the credibility and testifying potential of key witnesses, and predicting what arguments or defenses will be presented by opposing counsel.  A diligence team with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives will be better at identifying risks and assessing the value of potential claims.  For example, a funder will often speak extensively with key witnesses to assess how they would present testimony at trial and whether a jury would find that testimony credible and persuasive.  If a trial team were conducting a mock jury to test these points, it would assemble a diverse panel of men and women from different ages and backgrounds to get various views on the testimony.  Similarly, a funder trying to make its own internal assessment will be better served by a diverse team with a variety of perspectives.  If everyone in the room has the same basic background, characteristics, and experiences, they are likely to see things similarly and thus miss key factors that could be important in determining the impact of the testimony.  And this is only one aspect of a risk assessment.  Each step of the diligence and risk assessment process would benefit from analysis by a diverse team.  The biggest concern in the litigation finance industry is that a funder, broker, or insurer misses a significant risk in their assessment of a legal asset and finds themselves funding an investment that has a low chance of success in hindsight.  A diverse team will protect against this outcome and therefore drive revenue for industry participants.

“You talkin’ to me?” 

At the end of the day, the value of meaningfully implemented diversity initiatives is clear.  Having the benefit of differing experiences and perspectives makes companies better.  And, as to litigation finance in particular, diversity without question strengthens the return on investments. 

But just having a diverse workforce does not necessarily result in a better company or improved profitability.  The company needs to foster an inclusive environment where diverse perspectives are valued and integrated into decision-making processes and where those selected as thought leaders demonstrate how diversity is implemented, prioritized, and integrated into company culture.

In honor of International Women’s Day, make this a call to action – what can you do at your company to ensure you have the broadest perspectives represented?  Ask yourself, does the panel you are sponsoring completely reflect your target client base?  Does your leadership team include those with different perspectives?  Does your company provide women with networking and mentoring opportunities? 

After all, diversity presents an opportunity for someone at your company to collaborate with other market participants to write an article just like this.  

About the authors:

Molly Pease is Managing Director and Chief Compliance Officer at Curiam Capital, and Kirstine Rogers is Legal Director at Certum Group. They both serve on the Steering Committee for WOLF, the Women of Litigation Finance.  They can be reached at molly.pease@curiam.com and krogers@certumgroup.com. 

About the author

Molly Pease

Molly Pease



About the author

Kirstine Rogers

Kirstine Rogers

Commercial

View All

Federal Court Removes Hellyer Metals Liquidator, Citing Failure to Pursue Litigation Funding

The Federal Court of Australia has removed the liquidator of Hellyer Metals Pty Ltd, finding a lack of independence and criticising his handling of litigation funding offers that could have financed an investigation into a disputed asset transfer.

As reported by ABC News, Justice Shaun McElwaine delivered orders and reasons on 10 November 2026 in Goshawk Mining Pty Ltd v Hellyer Metals Pty Ltd, in the matter of Hellyer Metals Pty Ltd (in liq) [2026] FCA 1676, removing Liam Bailey of O'Brien Palmer and appointing Adam Johnston in his place, with all books and records to be handed over. The judgment records that the parties behind the share transfer under scrutiny had appointed Bailey, who then retained as his solicitor the lawyer who had introduced them. He also provided a draft statutory liquidation report to directors the court described as intimately involved in the transaction, conduct the judge called "a serious error of judgement and demonstrative of a lack of independence."

The funding findings were central. Time records showed 30.35 hours of investigative work between January and May 2026, of which just 12 minutes were spent on litigation funding. From March 2026, two companies offered to discuss funding an investigation, but the court found he failed to engage meaningfully. A funding agreement was signed only after the removal proceeding had commenced, following an approach from lawyers acting for two bankrupt former directors.

Hellyer Metals entered voluntary administration in January 2026, with Bailey appointed liquidator on 22 January. Assets had been transferred to associated company Celestial Group around the time the Tasmanian government ordered the Hellyer Gold Mine temporarily shut over unpaid debts. Goshawk Mining and Saxby Capital, which obtained a Supreme Court order freezing $36.4 million, are pursuing damages exceeding $36 million. The court described the transaction as prima facie highly questionable and said removal was indeed required.

Fortune Op-Ed Urges Delaware Chancery to Adopt Litigation Funder Disclosure Rule

Two Yale researchers are calling on the Delaware Court of Chancery to require parties to identify any outside litigation funder backing their claims, arguing that Delaware-incorporated companies can currently be sued in the state's marquee business court without ever learning who is financing the case against them.

As reported by Fortune, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Steven Tian write that no federal statute or rule compels disclosure of even the existence of a litigation funder. They point to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware as a counterexample: in April 2022, Chief Judge Colm Connolly issued a standing order requiring parties to disclose any funder and to state whether that funder controls litigation or settlement decisions. Because the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland makes Delaware the default patent venue for companies incorporated there, that order reaches a substantial share of the state's docket. The Court of Chancery has not followed suit.

The authors propose that every party before Chancery be required at the outset of a case to name any outside funder, identify it, and state whether it holds control over litigation strategy or settlement. They cite market growth as the reason for urgency, noting that global litigation finance reached $20.6bn in 2025 and is forecast to more than double over the next decade, with U.S. commercial funders holding roughly $16bn in assets under management at the end of 2024. They also reference a December 2024 Government Accountability Office report in which stakeholders flagged funding sourced from China, Saudi Arabia and France, and note that four senators introduced legislation in February requiring funder disclosure in federal class actions and multidistrict litigation.

Funders have consistently countered that third-party capital expands court access for claimants who could not otherwise afford to litigate.

Burford-Backed Kindleworth Opens New York Office With Two Senior Hires

Kindleworth, the UK legal consultancy backed by litigation funder Burford Capital, has opened an office in New York and appointed two senior figures to lead its expansion into the United States market.

As reported by Non-Billable, the firm has hired Maryana Kodner as Partner and Head of US Operations. Kodner is a former Clifford Chance litigator who has spent more than 20 years in senior operational roles at boutique New York law firms. Joining her as Strategic Advisor is Anand David, who previously oversaw the recruitment and integration of more than 300 partners and partner-led teams at Hogan Lovells, White & Case and Morrison Foerster.

Kindleworth provides infrastructure and support to lawyer-led firm launches, covering financing, strategy, recruitment, technology and operations. The business now has 60 professionals and has supported the launch of more than 50 law firms and offices globally, including the US launches of Three Crowns in Washington, DC and Pallas Partners in New York.

Burford Capital took a strategic minority investment in Kindleworth in 2025, backing the consultancy's international expansion. The New York opening marks the first substantial deployment of that capital in the US market.

Chief executive James Hacking said the firm has had "a front-row seat to one of the most significant shifts in the legal industry, as leading partners choose to build focused, entrepreneurial firms rather than remain within traditional structures."

The move reflects a broader pattern of litigation funders extending their capital beyond individual case investments and into the infrastructure of the legal services market itself.