Trending Now
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 |
December 3, 2024

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

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
Commercial

Litigation Funding Ethics: What Attorneys Must Weigh Before Saying Yes

By John Freund |

Third party litigation funding has evolved from a niche financing option into a mainstream tool for law firms seeking to manage risk and pursue complex or capital intensive cases. As funding becomes more accessible, attorneys are increasingly evaluating whether outside capital can support growth, extend runway, or enable representation of clients who might otherwise lack resources. However, the expansion of litigation finance has also brought renewed scrutiny to the ethical considerations lawyers must address before entering into funding arrangements.

An article in JD Supra outlines several critical issues attorneys should consider when evaluating third party funding. One of the most significant distinctions is between contingent funding arrangements and traditional non recourse loans. In contingent structures, funders receive a percentage of any recovery, which can raise concerns under long standing prohibitions against fee sharing with non lawyers and doctrines such as champerty. While a handful of jurisdictions have relaxed these rules, most states continue to prohibit arrangements that resemble equity participation in legal fees. Attorneys operating across jurisdictions must be particularly cautious to ensure compliance with applicable professional conduct rules.

Even traditional funding structures can present ethical challenges. Although non recourse loans are generally more widely accepted, conflicts can arise if a funder’s financial interests diverge from those of the client. For example, a lender may prefer an earlier settlement that ensures repayment, while a client may wish to pursue prolonged litigation in hopes of a larger recovery. The article emphasizes that lawyers must retain full independence in decision making and ensure that funding agreements do not give funders control over litigation strategy or settlement decisions.

Client consent and transparency are also central considerations. Attorneys should disclose funding arrangements where required, obtain informed client consent before sharing any information with funders, and remain mindful of evolving court disclosure requirements.

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.