Trending Now

The Productivity Metric Litigation Finance Is Missing: Case Progress

The Productivity Metric Litigation Finance Is Missing: Case Progress

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

Litigation finance is an industry built around measurement. Funders scrutinize risk, duration, capital deployment, potential returns and portfolio performance, because understanding what creates or erodes value is fundamental to making good investment decisions.

But there is another form of value creation that is much harder to see on a spreadsheet: the progress created by the hundreds of conversations, emails and interactions that surround a matter.

A call is answered. An email is sent. A follow-up is logged. A message is passed to an investment manager. All of that looks like work being done, but the more useful question is whether any of it actually moved the matter forward.

That distinction between activity and progress is one I think more leaders should be paying attention to.

Busy doesn’t always mean productive

Every interaction creates work, but productive communication should also remove work somewhere else.

If a conversation gathers the missing information needed to progress an assessment, resolves a question from a law firm, arranges the right follow-up or gets an issue to the person capable of resolving it, it has created value.

If it simply results in another message, another email or another task being added to somebody’s list, it may have created activity without creating much progress at all.

That matters in litigation finance because senior legal and investment professionals are an expensive and finite resource. Their time is best spent applying judgment to complex matters, assessing risk and building relationships, rather than chasing information or dealing with routine requests that could have been resolved earlier.

So perhaps productivity shouldn’t simply be measured by how efficiently communications are handled. We should also ask how much unnecessary work those communications remove.

Think about what happened next

At Moneypenny, this is something we’ve thought about a great deal because answering the phone is only a small part of what a well-managed conversation can achieve.

Depending on the business and the interaction, that might mean capturing detailed information, qualifying an inquiry, arranging an appointment, updating a system, following up an outstanding action or ensuring a complex conversation reaches the right person with the right context.

For a litigation finance business, the specifics will obviously be different, but the principle is the same: the value isn’t simply in handling the interaction; it’s in what happens because it was handled well.

That changes the questions leaders should ask.

Rather than only looking at volumes, response times or the number of interactions completed, look at outcomes. Did we obtain the information required? Did we resolve the issue? Did we eliminate another round of follow-up? Did we protect someone’s time? Did we move the matter to its next meaningful stage? Those measures tell you far more about productivity.

AI should create progress, not just efficiency

This becomes particularly relevant as AI takes on a greater role in business communication.

There is understandable enthusiasm around what automation can do faster and at greater scale but simply automating activity doesn’t necessarily create value. If AI answers a question but leaves the person unsure what to do next or captures information that still needs to be manually re-entered or clarified, the business may have made one interaction faster while creating more work downstream.

The real opportunity is to use technology to remove friction: handling routine requests consistently, capturing and organizing information, supporting faster routing and completing straightforward actions where appropriate.

Then, when an interaction requires commercial judgment, sensitivity, negotiation or expertise, it should move seamlessly to a person who can provide it.

The objective isn’t to automate the greatest possible number of interactions. It’s to create the best possible outcome from each one.

Communication is part of operational performance

This way of thinking also changes where communication sits within the business. It stops being something that happens around the “real work” and becomes part of how efficiently that work gets done.

In litigation finance, where matters can be complex, involve multiple stakeholders and continue over long periods, there is considerable value in reducing unnecessary friction. One well-managed interaction can prevent several follow-ups, clarify responsibility, surface an issue earlier or simply give the right person the information they need to make a decision.

Multiply those small gains across an organization and they become significant. That’s why leaders should start treating case progress as a productivity lens.

Not another metric for the sake of another dashboard, but a simple discipline: when we communicate, are we creating momentum or merely moving information around?

From measuring work to measuring value

Businesses have spent years becoming better at measuring activity. Technology has made it possible to track almost everything: calls, emails, response times, tasks, tickets and workflows.

The next step is to become better at measuring what all that activity achieves.

For litigation funders, that means looking beyond whether an interaction happened and asking whether it helped a matter progress, protected valuable expertise, strengthened a relationship or removed work further down the line.

Because being busy and being productive are not the same thing.

And ultimately, the most valuable conversation isn’t necessarily the longest, the fastest or even the most complex. It’s the one that gets something done.

—

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

Deminor’s Wouter de Jong Sees Untapped Dutch Demand for Commercial and Patent Dispute Funding

Deminor's newest Dutch hire has said many sound business-to-business disputes in the Netherlands go unpursued because of cost, risk or resource constraints, pointing to an opening for litigation funders.

As reported by Litigation Finance Insider, Wouter de Jong discussed his move into funding in an interview published on 4 October. De Jong joined Deminor as Senior Legal Counsel in its Utrecht office after more than 14 years in disputes, including eight as a patent litigator in private practice and six as Head of Litigation at a major international company, as Deminor announced in September.

He said litigation funding is less unfamiliar to Dutch companies than it was 15 years ago but remains poorly understood. Two misconceptions recur with clients: the non-recourse "no cure, no pay" structure, and the extent to which Deminor offers litigation expertise beyond capital. He credited the Netherlands' legal system, efficient proceedings and strong judiciary for producing meaningful outcomes within reasonable timeframes.

De Jong also highlighted intellectual property. The Unified Patent Court, he said, lets patentees resolve disputes across larger territories in a single forum, and he has seen rising local inquiries about patent funding. Patent cases demand deeper underwriting of the technology and the scope of protection, making them slower to assess than typical commercial disputes.

The interview signals where Deminor expects growth from its Dutch presence, which opened in June as its tenth office worldwide: single-claim commercial and IP disputes, rather than the collective actions for which the Dutch market is better known.

Loopa Finance’s Gouveia Urges Litigation Funding Rules That Protect Transparency Without Capping Returns

A senior investment manager at Loopa Finance has argued that litigation finance regulation should safeguard transparency and independence without restricting pricing, access to capital or the industry's ability to innovate.

As reported by Litigation Finance Insider, Marina Gouveia, Senior Investment Manager at Loopa Finance, said in a commentary published on 4 October that standards-based oversight is preferable to prescriptive statutory rules. She identified transparency, independence, contractual clarity and the integrity of proceedings as the priorities.

Gouveia noted that the market spans single-case funding, portfolio financing, award monetisation and law firm or corporate structures, and that sophisticated corporate clients and individual consumers have very different needs. A uniform regime, she suggested, would fit neither well. She also warned that return caps could make some claims less commercially attractive to finance, particularly those needing large upfront costs or long proceedings, which could narrow access to justice.

She accepted that some regulatory goals are legitimate, including managing conflicts of interest, ensuring parties understand their agreements, verifying that funders have the resources to perform, and protecting claimants' control over strategy and settlement. Her preferred route is standards that evolve through courts, arbitral institutions, counsel and funders as new risks emerge, rather than legislation attempting to anticipate future products.

The piece names no specific jurisdictions or bills. It arrives as regulators in the UK, EU and several US states continue to debate disclosure and oversight rules, and it reflects the self-regulation approach funders such as Loopa have promoted through bodies including the European Litigation Funders Association.

PGMBM Opposes Bid to Hold 400,000-Claimant Mariana Hearing in Private

Pogust Goodhead, trading as PGMBM, has said it is opposing an application to hold today's High Court hearing on who represents more than 400,000 claimants in the Mariana Dam litigation under seal.

According to a statement issued by PGMBM, lawyers acting for the Mariana Client Committee served an application on Monday asking the court to hold the hearing in private. A PGMBM spokesperson said the firm believes the move "flies in the face of access to justice" for the claimants affected by the disaster, and described transparency for clients as fundamental. PGMBM said it is urgently asking the judge to reject the application in the public interest.

The hearing is an expedited two-day session on 5 and 6 October to decide which firm should act for the claimants. As Legal Futures reported, the High Court earlier refused a request to stay the proceedings and directed that the representation dispute be determined at that hearing, rejecting calls for it to be held in private. The dispute pits PGMBM against Bailey Glasser International, which the Client Committee has sought to instruct in its place.

The statement did not say how the court has responded to the new application, and the application itself was supplied to media only as an attachment. PGMBM's account is one side of a contested matter, and the Client Committee's lawyers have not been quoted.

The fight over the case, a claim against BHP over the 2015 Fundão dam collapse, has drawn attention across the litigation funding market because control of a mass claim of this size determines how funders, lawyers and claimants are aligned ahead of the quantum trial listed for April 2027.