Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Bill Alessi, Founder & CEO, Alpha Modus
  • Burford Fires Opening Salvo Against Senate Tax Hike
Commercial Legal Innovation

Wexler Announces $1.4 Million Pre-Seed Financing, Global Law Firm Adoption and Launch of AI Agent to Enhance Dispute Resolution

By Harry Moran |

Wexler AI, the AI-powered legal fact intelligence platform, today announced major enhancements driving adoption among leading law firms, including Burges Salmon and a top AmLaw100 firm. Clifford Chance is also exploring the platform for use in its world-leading litigation and dispute resolution practice. Wexler’s platform automates essential fact-checking and intelligence gathering in high-stakes legal disputes, allowing lawyers to focus on more complex and strategic value-driven activities. These advancements follow a $1.4M pre-seed funding round led by Myriad Venture Partners, with support from Entrepreneur First, prominent angel investors at ComplyAdvantage, Moonpig, Tractable, and CreditKudos, fueling Wexler’s growth and mission to redefine litigation worldwide.

Since its launch in April of this year, Wexler AI has processed over one million queries, achieved approximately 2X month-over-month growth, and more than tripled its annual recurring revenue (ARR). Wexler’s advanced platform enables law firms to help manage large caseloads with greater accuracy, reallocating resources from time-intensive manual review to high-value legal strategy. Built by security and privacy experts, the platform uses user-specific encryption keys, masks personal data, and meets ISO 27001, GDPR, and AWS Cloud Security standards.

“Wexler assists lawyers working on the world’s most complex cases. The platform delivers critical, verified facts that legal teams can act on with full confidence,” said Gregory Mostyn, co-founder and CEO of Wexler AI. “With support from Myriad Venture Partners, and Entrepreneur First, and working closely with Burges Salmon and also Clifford Chance, among others, we’re not just transforming how the legal industry tackles the time and efficiencies of fact-finding, but helping our customers generate greater business value for their clients.”

There is significant potential to improve efficiencies in the litigation document review process. Wexler’s AI approach reduces manual work, minimizes risk, and uncovers critical facts faster. Unlike traditional eDiscovery tools that merely organize documents, Wexler is purpose-built for high-stakes dispute resolution, delivering insights with an accuracy matching seasoned litigators.

Central to this is KiM, Wexler’s advanced agent for complex dispute tasks, which produces verified work output directly from case facts, automating steps like drafting, generating court applications, and extracting data from vast document sets. More than a passive tool, Wexler uncovers red flags, suggests follow-ups, and enhances case strategy as an active partner, enabling legal teams to drive efficiency and deliver results on the most challenging cases.

“Wexler is a powerful AI tool that is clearly designed for the types and volumes of work faced in dispute resolution,” said Tom Whittaker, director at Burges Salmon. “It allows us to identify relevant facts and produce useful work in a relatively short time, augmenting the work of our expert teams by providing them with additional methods to achieve their objectives. It has been a pleasure to work with the Wexler team over a number of years to continually improve its functionality to help meet our clients’ and colleagues’ high expectations.

With new funding from Myriad, Wexler is expanding its platform in 2025 including new features such as automated document drafting, advanced fact-checking tools, and streamlined discovery requests. These enhancements will extend Wexler’s impact beyond the legal sector, offering new applications in compliance and HR investigations.

“Wexler AI is redefining fact-finding for legal and investigative work, and we see enormous potential in its unique approach,” said Chris Fisher, founder and managing partner of Myriad Venture Partners. “Their rapid growth and ability to deliver verified, actionable information are transforming how legal teams and other professionals manage complex data. We’re excited to support Wexler’s journey and look forward to their continued momentum and innovation.”

Wexler’s founding team blends deep expertise in AI, law, and business. Gregory Mostyn and Kush Madlani met at Entrepreneur First, united by a vision of creating a category defining applied AI company. Gregory saw the inefficiencies of litigation firsthand when his barrister, then judge father, returned from work with binders piled high to the roof of his office. Kush, a former JP Morgan derivatives trader, began automating workflows with Python before completing a Machine Learning Master’s at UCL and joining Tractable, where he developed fraud-detection models and continuous improvement systems. Kush’s scientific background pairs perfectly with Gregory’s commercial experience as a marketing and sales director to transform dispute resolution. 

Wexler AI collaborates with partners across the legal sector, from AM 100 law firms to in-house teams at major enterprises. Interested clients can request a demo at https://www.wexler.ai/.

About Wexler AI

Wexler AI tackles the world’s most complex cases by streamlining fact analysis for legal, compliance, eDiscovery, tax, and forensics teams. Trusted by top global law firms, Wexler is redefining fact-finding through a combination of AI and human expertise. For more information, visit https://www.wexler.ai/.

About Myriad Venture Partners

Myriad Venture Partners is an early-stage venture firm defining the future of business solutions. Investing in visionary AI, clean technology, and B2B software leaders, Myriad brings decades of expertise and a robust corporate and financial partnership network. By connecting entrepreneurs, corporate partners, industry leaders, and co-investors, Myriad is changing the ways businesses operate, compete, and create value.

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.