Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Smarter Intake for Litigation Finance Firms

By Eric Schurke |
March 24, 2026

Smarter Intake for Litigation Finance Firms

The following piece was contributed by Eric Schurke, CEO, North America at Moneypenny.

From the very first interaction, litigation finance firms and legal teams should be capturing structured, decision-ready information that enables early case assessment, risk evaluation, and efficient routing. 

This typically includes:

• Who the potential claimant or referrer is and their preferred method of communication
• The context of the matter, including jurisdiction and type of claim
• The stage, urgency, and timeline of the case
• Key parties involved and any relevant documentation
• How the opportunity originated

When captured consistently, this information allows for faster triage, more effective screening, and quicker progression from initial enquiry to investment decision. 

What are the most common mistakes organizations make when handling inbound investment or M&A inquiries?

In litigation finance, the most common mistakes are operational but they have direct commercial and reputational consequences:

1. Slow response times
Prospective clients often contact multiple firms at once. Delays can signal lack of availability or interest.

2. Unstructured information capture
Inquiries can come in over the phone, through email, website forms and LinkedIn, resulting in fragmented or incomplete information.

3. Over-automation or under-humanization
Generic automated responses can feel impersonal, while entirely manual processes create inconsistency and delays.

4. Poor routing and follow-up
Without clear ownership, communications can sit in inboxes or be passed between teams meaning opportunities can stall or be lost internally.

Ultimately, the biggest mistake is treating first contact as administrative rather than strategic, when, in reality, it is the starting point of deal quality.

The most effective approach is a hybrid one – using technology for speed, structure, and consistency and people for judgement and relationship-building.

Technology can:
• Capture and structure case data
• Provide immediate acknowledgement
• Ensure questions are routed quickly and consistently
• Create a clear audit trail

People can:
• Understand nuance and context
• Build rapport and trust
• Ask the right follow-up questions
• Represent the funder’s brand and values

At the start of any case or investment journey, relationships matter. Technology should enhance that experience, not replace it.

What measurable impact can better first contact have on pipeline strength, relationships, and deal outcomes?

Stronger first contact directly improves:

  • Pipeline quality: better intake leads to more qualified, investment-ready opportunities
  • Conversion rates: fast, more professional responses increase engagement and exclusivity, as well as the likelihood of securing instructions
  • Investor confidence: structured early-stage data improves decision-making
  • Operational efficiency: less time chasing incomplete information and faster conflict checks
  • Deal velocity: quicker progression from enquiry to evaluation and funding decision.

Small improvements at the top of the funnel compound across the entire investment lifecycle.

If firms could make just one or two changes today to improve their approach to inquiries, what would you recommend?

1. Create a standardized intake framework
Define the essential data needed for case screening and risk assessment, and ensure it is captured consistently across every channel.

2. Treat first contact as a strategic touchpoint
Ensure every enquiry receives a prompt, professional and human response that reflects the firm’s brand and client-care standards.

In litigation finance, early impressions don’t just shape relationships, they shape deal outcomes. These two changes alone can significantly improve conversion, efficiency and client relationships.

—

Eric Schurke is CEO, North America at Moneypenny, the world’s customer conversation experts. He works with legal firms, litigation funders, and professional services to transform how they manage and qualify inbound opportunities. Eric is passionate about helping organisations strengthen deal flow, improve first impressions, and deliver exceptional client experiences from the very first interaction.

About the author

Eric Schurke

Eric Schurke

Eric Schurke is CEO, North America at Moneypenny, the world’s customer conversation experts. He works with legal firms, litigation funders, and professional services to transform how they manage and qualify inbound opportunities. Eric is passionate about helping organisations strengthen deal flow, improve first impressions, and deliver exceptional client experiences from the very first interaction.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Malaysia’s New Arbitration Funding Rules Follow Collapse of Therium-Backed Sulu Claim

Two Malaysian jurists have published a retrospective on the Sulu arbitration, drawing a direct line from the failure of the funded US$15 billion claim against Malaysia to the statutory framework the country has since built around third-party funding of arbitration.

As reported by The Edge Malaysia, the piece is written by Tan Sri Zainun Ali, a former Federal Court judge, and barrister J J Chan. They note that the claim brought by parties describing themselves as heirs of the Sultan of Sulu "was reportedly backed by third-party litigation funding, attributed in public reports to Therium Capital Management," on the usual basis that the funder would take a return if the claim succeeded.

It did not. The Paris Court of Appeal annulled the award in full on 9 December 2025, holding that no valid arbitration agreement capable of binding Malaysia existed. The claimants were ordered to pay Malaysia €200,000 in costs, and separately lost costs orders in proceedings before the Netherlands Supreme Court.

The legislative response is the part with the longest reach. Malaysia's Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 took effect on 1 January 2026 and, in the authors' description, "brings third-party funding of arbitration within a clear statutory framework," requiring disclosure of both the funding arrangement and the identity of the funder.

For funders, the sequence is instructive: a single high-profile enforcement campaign against a sovereign produced a disclosure regime that will now apply to every funded arbitration seated in the jurisdiction.

Commercial

New York Poll Finds Nearly 80% of Voters Would End Third-Party Litigation Funding

A statewide survey of likely New York voters has found that close to four in five would do away with third-party litigation funding altogether, placing the practice among the least popular items in a broad tort reform poll.

According to the Empire Center for Public Policy, which commissioned the survey from Cygnal and published the results on 2 September, 79.7% said they support ending the arrangement under which outside investors finance lawsuits in return for a share of any recovery.

Litigation funding did not stand alone. The poll found 94.5% supporting prosecution of staged-accident fraud, 83.4% favouring limits on pain-and-suffering awards, 79.7% backing changes to workplace-injury liability rules, 77% supporting reforms aimed at frivolous lawsuits, and 66.6% in favour of amending the Scaffold Law, New York's absolute-liability statute for elevation-related construction injuries.

The clustering matters as much as the individual figures. Funding is being tested here alongside fraud and damages caps rather than as a discrete question about access to capital, and the framing offered to respondents describes investors financing lawsuits for a portion of the proceeds without reference to claimants who could not otherwise bring a case.

New York enacted consumer legal funding protections earlier this year, and the state has no disclosure statute covering commercial funding. Polling of this kind is likely to be cited in Albany as the next session approaches, and funders should expect the 79.7% figure to travel well beyond the survey it came from.

Commercial

DIFC Court Orders Defendant to Reveal Who Is Funding His Legal Team in $456M TrueUSD Case

A Dubai court has given a defendant in a $456 million stablecoin dispute until 7 September to swear an affidavit identifying who has been paying his lawyers, in an unusually direct judicial demand for the source of a litigant's legal funding.

As reported by CryptoSlate, the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts made the order in *Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC and others*, the proceedings over $456 million transferred out of the reserves backing the TrueUSD token. Matthew William Brittain, one of the respondents, must disclose by 4pm Gulf Standard Time.

The order is specific about what is wanted. Brittain must give the amounts, dates and bank accounts behind fees paid to Quinn Emanuel, Horizons, Gall, Campbells and FTI Consulting, identify the original sources and ultimate beneficial owners of those funds, explain how the accounts were funded and produce supporting documents. It singles out $1,083,912.49 paid by Aria Bio Industries FZE on 31 October 2025.

Compliance is required "to the best of his ability," and the court indicated that further adjournments would need "the most extreme circumstances" backed by strong evidence. Sanctions are not automatic; Techteryx would have to apply. A committal hearing with a four-day estimate is listed for 26 October.

Most disclosure fights concern claimant-side funding. This one runs the other way, and shows a court treating the defence's funding chain as a matter it is entitled to see.