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 |

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 Regulatory Issues

Burford Capital CEO: Government Inaction on PACCAR is Harming London Market

By Harry Moran |

As we approach the beginning of summer, the litigation funding industry is growing impatient in waiting for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding, with funders anxious to see the government provide a solution to the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an overview of an interview with Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital; who spoke at length about the ongoing impact of the UK government’s failure to introduce legislation to solve issues created by the PACCAR ruling. Bogart highlighted the key correlation between funders’ reluctance to allocate more capital to the London legal market and “the government non-response” to find a quick and effective solution to PACCAR.

Comparing the similarities in effect of the government inaction over funding legislation to the Trump administration’s tariff policy, Bogart said simply, “markets and businesses don’t like such uncertainty.” He went on to describe the London market as “not as healthy as you would like it to be”, pointing to statistics showing a decrease in capital allocation and the examples of major funders like Therium making job cuts.

One particular pain point that Bogart pointed to was Burford’s newfound hesitancy to name London as an arbitral seat and choose English law for international contracts, saying that the company has moved those contracts to jurisdictions including Singapore, Paris or New York. Bogart said that it was “unfortunate because this is one of the major global centres for litigation and arbitration”, but argued that the strategic jurisdictional shift was a result of having “a less predictable dynamic here in this market”.

As for what Bogart would like to see from the upcoming CJC’s review of litigation funding, the Burford CEO emphasised the longstanding view of the funding industry that there is “no need for a big regulatory apparatus here.” Instead, Bogart suggested that an ideal outcome would be for the CJC to encourage Westminster “to restore a degree of predictability and stability into the market.”

Commercial Deals

Insurance CEO Ceases Trading with Firms Linked to Litigation Finance

By Harry Moran |

The tensions between the insurance industry and litigation finance are well established, with insurance industry groups often at the forefront of lobbying efforts calling for tighter regulations of third-party funding. In one of the most significant examples of this tension, the CEO of a speciality insurance company has declared that his company will cease doing business with any firm that is linked to litigation funding activity.

An article in Insurance Business highlights recent comments made by Andrew Robinson, chairman and CEO of Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, where he said that the company would no longer do business with companies who have any ties to litigation finance. Citing the uptick in the use of third-party funding as one of the primary contributors to social inflation, increasing product costs and reduced availability; Robinson declared that Skyward are “not going to trade with anybody who's involved in this”.

According to the article, Robinson’s decision was triggered by the company’s discovery that an asset manager it worked with was involved in litigation funding. Skyward then “shut off” its business relationship with the asset manager and is in the process of redeeming any remaining assets with the firm. Robinson said that the idea of Skyward having ties to firms involved with litigation finance “is wrong at all levels”, saying that he told his executive leadership team that “we can’t have that anywhere near us”.

Aside from the asset manager, Skyward was trading with a company involved in contingent insurance whose work included litigation finance, but Robinson stated that the unnamed company is reducing its already minor presence in the funding space.

Despite targeting his ire primarily at litigation funding, Robinson suggested that the wider issue stems from a “broken” tort system and that “you have to get to the root cause and toward reform”.  

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bell Gully Report: New Zealand Courts are “Enablers of Litigation Funding”

By Harry Moran |

Following a 2022 report from New Zealand’s Law Commission, there has been a distinct lack of action by successive governments to introduce a Class Actions Act or any forms of oversight for the use of third-party funding in large group claims.

A new report released by Bell Gully looks at the current state of class actions in New Zealand, examining the rise of large group claims  and the role of litigation funding as a key driver. In ‘The Big Picture: Class Actions’, Bell Gully says that “in the past five years class actions have moved from being a threat on the horizon to a regular feature in New Zealand’s courts”. 

The introduction to the report appears to paint litigation funders as the prime moving force behind this trend, saying that the swell in class actions is “being driven by the availability of third-party litigation funding rather than a groundswell of consumer action.” Identifying the most prominent funders at work in New Zealand, Bell Gully points to LPF Group as the dominant local funder, Omni Bridgeway for its strong market reach from Australia, and Harbour for its global strength across litigation and arbitration funding. 

Without any legislative measures regulating funding and with no established industry association like Australia’s AALF, Bell Gully highlights the courts as the main mechanism of control over funding activity. The report goes further and suggests that “funder-friendly court decisions have contributed to the growing influence of litigation funders in New Zealand”, noting the admission of opt-out class actions and courts’ willingness to make common fund orders.

In its review of the need for a Class Actions Act in New Zealand, Bell Gully argues that the current lack of oversight on funding has led to a situation where the courts are acting as “enablers of litigation funding” rather than regulators of the practice.

The full report can be accessed here.