Client A approaches law firm Joe Bloggs LLP with a prospective new ICC arbitration. Prima facie, the case appears attractive. Joe Bloggs LLP quickly ascertains that the quantum is likely to be in the region of £40milllion and the potential WIP value of the case in the region of £2million. The client holds strong documentary evidence in support of the case and appears highly credible. The client’s dilemma is that it is not liquid.
The partner at Joe Bloggs LLP commences enquiries with the litigation funding market, using Google and other mechanisms to find their contact details. Initial interest is expressed by a few providers and various lengthy email exchanges take place, with the funders sometimes requesting the same information as one another and often requesting that individual meetings take place to discuss the same.
Two months pass and the partner at Joe Bloggs LLP has incurred some £60,000 in fees, solely dealing with the funding market, with little to show by way of firm commitment from any funder. The client grows tired of the delays and notifies Joe Bloggs LLP that he has instead decided to instruct US law firm Rainmaker LLP.
Joe Bloggs LLP has to write off the outstanding fees (as the client hasn’t signed a retainer) and loses the opportunity to earn significant WIP and PR from the case in question.
The moral of the story is that clients are becoming increasingly sophisticated in hedging their bets before committing to a formal retainer with a given law firm.
We understand this puts pressure on lawyers to “lock in” the client by demonstrating proactivity. However, if the process of securing funding is slow, with an ill-advised selection of funders, tender management or a misunderstanding as to how to structure the best deal for the client, what was an attractive case to the firm could result in a waste of precious time and frustratingly a lost opportunity to earn significant WIP.
A COSTS NEUTRAL AND COMMITTED PARTNER
Whilst we cannot ever guarantee that the litigation funding or insurance market will offer terms for a given case, we can guarantee that we will use our intricate market knowledge and broking skills to secure offers as quickly and efficiently as possible, whilst avoiding the traps that lawyers often fall into when navigating the litigation funding market themselves.
If the market ever published statistics of enquiries versus deals completed, given our expansive connections and skills, we are exceptionally confident that TheJudge’s ratio would dwarf even the largest funder’s figures.
Consider TheJudge a cost neutral additional team member, committed to getting a deal done to enable the law firm to sign the client up to the retainer and to enable the lawyers to get the action moving with the most competitive funding deal secured.