Supporting justice. Enhancing portfolios. Creating alignment.

Litigation Funding provides financial support to claimants pursuing meritorious legal actions, in return for a share of the proceeds. These funding arrangements offer individuals, businesses, and institutions a means to pursue justice — without compromising financial flexibility or capital reserves.

As of 2024, the global litigation funding market is valued at approximately USD 23.57 billion. Projections indicate growth to around USD 59.78 billion by 2034, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.62% during the forecast period.

How Does Litigation Funding Work?

Capital is provided on a non-recourse basis, meaning the funder only receives a return if the case results in a successful settlement or judgment. The legal merits, enforceability, and counterparty risk of each claim are thoroughly assessed before any commitment is made.

Investments may be structured around:

• Individual commercial disputes

• Portfolios of claims

• Law firm financing arrangements

• Post-settlement monetisation

The funder may cover legal fees, expert witness costs, court fees, and other associated expenses, while the legal team remains entirely independent.

Typical Litigation Funding Agreement

Example

Role and Key Benefits

Litigation funding offers a compelling value proposition for sophisticated investors seeking uncorrelated, non-market-dependent returns.

Key benefits include:

• Low correlation to equity and bond markets

• Attractive risk-adjusted returns in both rising and falling economic conditions

• Access to unique return drivers tied to legal outcomes, not macroeconomic events

• Social alignment in many cases, enabling access to justice and leveling the legal playing field

Key Investment Risks

As with any alternative asset class, litigation funding carries specific risks that require professional oversight and rigorous selection:

• Binary outcomes – success is often case-dependent, with full or partial loss of capital possible

• Lengthy timelines – resolution can take years, affecting liquidity

• Regulatory and jurisdictional variation – laws differ widely across markets, requiring deep legal expertise

• Reputation risk – particularly in cases of public interest or ethical complexity

Our clients well-managed litigation finance portfolios are spread capital across multiple claims, jurisdictions, and legal strategies to balance these risks.

Is Litigation Funding a Socially Conscious Investment?

While litigation funding is primarily a financial strategy, it is increasingly recognised as a form of socially conscious or impact-aligned investing - particularly when it supports access to justice, levels the legal playing field, and enables valid claims to proceed that might otherwise go unheard.

When thoughtfully applied, litigation funding can:

• Promote fairness by allowing individuals, small businesses, and under-resourced parties to pursue legitimate legal claims

• Hold powerful institutions accountable, especially in commercial disputes, class actions, and corporate misconduct cases

• Support transparency and the rule of law, particularly in jurisdictions where justice is prohibitively expensive

• Enable ESG-related legal actions, including environmental harm, labour rights, and corporate governance disputes

Of course, not all litigation funding is impact-driven - some investments are purely opportunistic. However, for investors who value purpose alongside performance, this asset class can provide both.

Common Misconceptions

“It’s only for desperate plaintiffs.”
In reality, many large corporates and institutions use litigation funding to manage risk and free up capital for other priorities.

“Funders influence legal decisions.”
Funders have no control over legal strategy or case management. The independence of legal counsel is maintained at all times.

“It’s too risky.”
While litigation inherently carries risk, structured funding models, diversification, and strict due diligence significantly mitigate downside exposure.

Case Study: Bates & Others v. Post Office Ltd

Between 2000 and 2014, hundreds of UK sub-postmasters were wrongfully accused of theft and fraud due to faults in the Post Office's Horizon IT system. Many faced financial ruin, criminal convictions, and personal hardship. In 2019, 555 sub-postmasters, led by Alan Bates, initiated a group litigation against the Post Office. This legal action was made possible through litigation funding, which provided the necessary resources to challenge a well-resourced defendant.​

The High Court ruled in favor of the claimants, acknowledging the system's faults and the injustices suffered. This case not only rectified individual wrongs but also prompted a broader examination of institutional accountability within the UK's postal system.​

Source: The Guardian