How Legal Claims Become Bankable Assets
We advise family offices and other sophisticated investors evaluating litigation opportunities.
Sophisticated family offices are increasingly evaluating litigation as an investable asset class. The best opportunities are those whose risk can be priced with discipline.
We analyze proof, damages, collectability, duration, and strategic posture — so capital can be deployed with confidence.
We advise participants across the litigation finance market.
Family offices and sophisticated investors. We review litigation opportunities under consideration and provide independent assessment of legal merit, proof quality, damages, collectability, duration, and portfolio fit.
Litigation finance firms. We provide outside review of matters requiring deeper diligence, clearer proof architecture, or an independent underwriting lens.
Litigants and trial counsel. In select matters, we also advise claimants and counsel seeking to prepare an opportunity for capital review.
We apply the same framework whether the conclusion is yes, no, or not yet. A negative conclusion is often as valuable as a positive one. Capital discipline depends on rigorous rejection as much as disciplined selection.
The purpose of the review is to test whether interest survives underwriting scrutiny.
Capital is rationally cautious in litigation. Most opportunities are declined because risk has not been translated into a form capital can trust.
Confidence comes from visibility: clear proof, defensible damages, defined recovery paths, realistic duration, and a presentation shaped by underwriting discipline.
When the risk is priced in a form capital can trust, good opportunities are recognized as such. That is the function this process serves.
Many cases are legally strong. Far fewer are investable. The ones that get funded are the ones that have been translated into underwriting terms.
Fundable cases share three characteristics. First, they are framed for proof — every element is mapped to admissible evidence before filing. Second, they are framed for capital — probability, damages, duration, and collectability are presented in terms funders can evaluate. Third, they target defendants who can pay — assets, insurance, and enforcement pathways are verified before capital is committed.
We correct all three. We reconstruct cases around proof, translate them into underwriting terms, and engineer collectability from the outset.
Litigators are trained to believe in their cases. Capital allocators are trained to price risk. That difference creates a structural gap.
A litigator must commit fully — adopt a clear narrative and prosecute it with conviction. That mindset is necessary to win at trial. Capital allocation requires a colder lens. A funder evaluates whether the expected return compensates for duration, uncertainty, and losses elsewhere in the portfolio.
When the analysis is complete — when proof, damages, collectability, and duration are made explicit — good cases are recognized as such.
We retain the litigator’s understanding of the case but impose the capital allocator’s discipline. We force the analysis into numbers, probabilities, timelines, and recovery pathways. The result is a case that can be evaluated on the same terms as any other investment.
Litigation can be an attractive asset class, but only when risk is visible and recovery pathways are real. We work with family offices to evaluate prospective litigation opportunities before capital is deployed.
Our review focuses on five questions: Is the case provable? Are the damages economically meaningful? Is there a credible path to recovery? Is the likely duration acceptable? Does the opportunity justify the risk on a portfolio basis?
The result is a decision-ready assessment designed to support investment committee review, portfolio comparison, and disciplined capital allocation.
Every investable litigation opportunity must satisfy four tests.
Six disciplined phases. Each produces a discrete deliverable. Together they turn uncertainty into something capital can price.
At completion, we deliver a decision-ready underwriting file designed to support investment committee review, portfolio comparison, and capital allocation.
Phase-based budget built from the assumption that the matter may need to be prosecuted through trial. All figures are illustrative. The purpose is visibility: where capital is consumed, when it is consumed, and what it is expected to produce.
| Phase | Low | Base | High | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Filing (OOP, damages, OSINT) | $75,000 | $112,500 | $150,000 | Before filing |
| Pleading & Motion to Dismiss | $100,000 | $200,000 | $300,000 | 3–12 mo. |
| Discovery | $500,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,500,000 | 12–18 mo. |
| Summary Judgment | $250,000 | $375,000 | $500,000 | 6–12 mo. |
| Trial Prep & Trial | $500,000 | $750,000 | $1,000,000 | 3–6 mo. |
| Total | $1,425,000 | $2,437,500 | $3,450,000 | 24–42 mo. |
Gross damages are discounted through five independent layers reflecting the distinct risks a funder prices. The goal is to convert a claim into a conservative expected-value profile that can survive underwriting scrutiny.
All figures below are illustrative and do not represent an actual case. They demonstrate the analytical framework applied to every matter.
Duration and win rate are the two variables that most affect funder returns. The table below shows implied IRR at a 2.0x gross multiple across different combinations. Proof-first architecture compresses duration; disciplined case selection improves win rate. Both are controllable.
All figures are illustrative. IRR = (Multiple × Win Rate)^(1/Years) − 1.
| Duration | Years | 50% Win Rate | 60% Win Rate | 70% Win Rate | 80% Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 months | 1.0 | 0% | 20% | 40% | 60% |
| 18 months | 1.5 | 0% | 13% | 25% | 37% |
| 24 months | 2.0 | 0% | 10% | 18% | 26% |
| 30 months | 2.5 | 0% | 8% | 15% | 21% |
| 36 months | 3.0 | 0% | 6% | 12% | 17% |
| 42 months | 3.5 | 0% | 5% | 10% | 14% |
| 48 months | 4.0 | 0% | 5% | 9% | 12% |
At a 70% win rate and 30-month duration, the implied portfolio IRR is approximately 15%. Compressing to 18 months raises it to 25%. Improving win rate to 80% at 24 months produces 26%. The economics reward both speed and selectivity.
In select matters, communications strategy can increase settlement leverage and compress time to resolution. Where appropriate, communications are coordinated with litigation milestones and recovery objectives. Where discretion creates more value, we remain silent.
Certainty compression. Legal, factual, and economic uncertainty is collapsed into a form capital can price — before filing.
Proof architecture. The Outline of Proof maps every legal element to admissible evidence. The funder can see exactly what must be proven and how.
Damages defensibility. Three-scenario model, Daubert-compliant methodology, sensitivity-tested assumptions.
Collectability verification. Independent analysis of defendant assets, insurance, corporate structure, and enforcement risk.
Duration engineering. Proof-first architecture enables compressed discovery, affirmative scheduling, and early dispositive motions. Every month of compression increases IRR.
Selected essays on litigation finance, procedural velocity, and proof-first case architecture.
Intake and triage — 24–72 hours.
Full architecture build — 10–15 business days.
Delivery of underwriting package.
Funder introduction (if requested).
20+ years of federal trial practice. Former Proskauer Rose litigator. Federal judicial clerk. Brown University (Phi Beta Kappa), Harvard Law School.
Co-Managing Principal of Junto Opportunity Fund I LP, a Manhattan distressed multifamily real estate fund. Founder and Chairman of Junto Club USA LLC, a litigation venture studio focused on proof-first case architecture and civil procedure reform.