professional-toolkit/skills/litigation-case-screener/SKILL.md

---
name: litigation-funding-case-screener
description: >
  Structure a litigation funding assessment covering merits, quantum, enforceability,
  budget, timeline, and funder return modelling. Use this skill when a user mentions
  litigation funding, litigation finance, case assessment, third-party funding,
  dispute funding, case screening, merits assessment, quantum analysis, claims
  evaluation for funding, Burford, Omni Bridgeway, Harbour, or dispute resolution
  investment. Also trigger when a lawyer or funder needs to evaluate whether a case
  is suitable for external funding.
---

# Litigation Funding Case Screener

Structure a case assessment for litigation funding decisions. This skill guides
the analysis through the key dimensions funders evaluate — merits, quantum,
enforceability, defendant's ability to pay, budget, timeline, and projected
returns — producing a structured assessment that a funder's investment committee
can review.

## When to Use

- A litigant is considering whether to seek third-party funding
- A funder is screening a new case for investment
- A law firm is preparing a funding application for a client
- An in-house team needs to structure a case assessment for budget approval
- You need to evaluate a portfolio of cases for funding suitability

## Core Principle

**Litigation funding is an investment decision, not a legal opinion.** The funder
needs to assess risk-adjusted returns. A case with strong legal merits but an
insolvent defendant is a bad investment. A case with uncertain merits but a
massive quantum against a solvent sovereign may be attractive. This skill
structures the commercial assessment alongside the legal analysis.

## Input Requirements

Ask the user to provide as much of the following as available:

1. **Case summary** — parties, jurisdiction, cause of action, procedural history
2. **Legal opinion** (if available) — counsel's assessment of merits
3. **Quantum estimate** — the amount claimed and basis for calculation
4. **Defendant profile** — identity, jurisdiction, financial position, assets
5. **Budget estimate** — anticipated legal costs through each phase
6. **Timeline estimate** — expected duration through trial/arbitration and appeal
7. **Any existing offers** — settlement discussions, Part 36 offers, Calderbank letters

## Assessment Framework

### 1. Jurisdiction and Governing Law

- **Jurisdiction(s):** Where will the case be heard? Is there a jurisdictional dispute?
- **Governing law:** What law governs the substantive claims?
- **Procedural framework:** Common law adversarial, civil law inquisitorial, arbitration rules (ICC, LCIA, SIAC, ICSID, UNCITRAL)
- **Funding regulation:** Is third-party funding permitted in this jurisdiction? Any disclosure requirements? Champerty/maintenance risk?
- **Costs regime:** Loser-pays (English rule), each-party-bears-own (American rule), or hybrid? Implications for ATE insurance.

### 2. Merits Assessment

Structure the merits analysis around:

- **Cause(s) of action:** What legal theories support the claim? Rate each on a scale: Strong / Reasonable / Arguable / Weak
- **Factual basis:** Is the factual foundation documented? Key evidence available? Witness availability?
- **Legal precedent:** Is the legal position settled, developing, or novel? Key authorities?
- **Defences anticipated:** What defences will the respondent raise? Limitation, contributory negligence, sovereign immunity, force majeure?
- **Overall merits probability:** Assign a probability range (e.g., 60-70% on liability)

### 3. Quantum Analysis

- **Claimed amount:** The headline figure
- **Basis of calculation:** Lost profits, wasted costs, diminution in value, restitution, specific performance
- **Discount factors:** Probability of establishing each head of loss; mitigation arguments; contributory factors
- **Expected value:** Claimed amount × probability of recovery on each head
- **Interest:** Pre- and post-judgment interest rates and period
- **Costs recovery:** Estimated recoverable costs if successful

### 4. Enforceability

- **Defendant identity:** Corporate, individual, sovereign entity?
- **Defendant's financial position:** Revenue, assets, cash reserves, debt levels
- **Asset traceability:** Where are the defendant's assets located? Are they susceptible to enforcement?
- **Enforcement regime:** Is the judgment/award enforceable in the asset jurisdiction? New York Convention (arbitration), Hague Convention, bilateral treaties?
- **Sovereign immunity:** If the defendant is a state entity, does sovereign immunity apply? Exceptions?
- **Insolvency risk:** Is the defendant at risk of insolvency during the proceedings?

### 5. Budget and Timeline

Structure the budget in phases:

| Phase | Activities | Estimated Cost | Duration |
|-------|-----------|---------------|----------|
| Pre-action | Investigation, evidence gathering, demand letter | $[amount] | [months] |
| Pleadings | Filing, defence, reply | $[amount] | [months] |
| Disclosure / Discovery | Document production, review, e-discovery | $[amount] | [months] |
| Witness evidence | Statements, expert reports | $[amount] | [months] |
| Trial / Hearing | Preparation, advocacy, post-hearing briefs | $[amount] | [months] |
| Costs assessment | Detailed assessment if costs awarded | $[amount] | [months] |
| Appeal (if applicable) | Grounds, hearing | $[amount] | [months] |
| Enforcement | Asset tracing, enforcement proceedings | $[amount] | [months] |
| **Total** | | **$[total]** | **[total months]** |

### 6. Return Modelling

Model the funder's return under different scenarios:

| Scenario | Probability | Recovery | Funder's Share | Funder's Return | Multiple |
|----------|------------|----------|---------------|----------------|----------|
| Full win at trial | [%] | $[amount] | $[amount] | $[amount] | [x] |
| Partial win | [%] | $[amount] | $[amount] | $[amount] | [x] |
| Settlement (pre-trial) | [%] | $[amount] | $[amount] | $[amount] | [x] |
| Loss at trial | [%] | $0 | $0 | -$[budget] | -1x |
| **Expected value** | 100% | | | **$[weighted]** | **[x]** |

Typical funder parameters:
- Minimum return multiple: 3x on invested capital, or
- Minimum IRR: 25-30% net
- Minimum case size: $5M+ quantum (some funders: $10M+)
- Maximum budget-to-quantum ratio: typically <1:10

## Output Format

```markdown
# Litigation Funding Case Assessment

## Case Overview
- **Parties:** [Claimant] v [Respondent(s)]
- **Jurisdiction:** [forum and governing law]
- **Cause of Action:** [summary]
- **Quantum Claimed:** [currency] [amount]
- **Estimated Budget:** [currency] [amount]
- **Estimated Duration:** [months/years]

## Assessment Summary

| Dimension | Rating | Confidence |
|-----------|--------|-----------|
| Merits | [Strong/Reasonable/Arguable/Weak] | [High/Medium/Low] |
| Quantum | [Well-supported/Reasonable/Speculative] | [High/Medium/Low] |
| Enforceability | [Strong/Moderate/Challenging] | [High/Medium/Low] |
| Defendant solvency | [Strong/Adequate/Concerning] | [High/Medium/Low] |
| Budget proportionality | [Proportionate/Acceptable/Stretched] | [High/Medium/Low] |

## Investment Recommendation
[PROCEED TO FULL DUE DILIGENCE / REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION / DECLINE]

[Rationale — what makes this case attractive or unattractive as an investment]

## Key Risks
1. [Risk and mitigation]
2. [Risk and mitigation]

## Information Gaps
[What additional information is needed before a funding decision]
```

## Important Notes

- This skill structures the assessment process. Funding decisions require legal
  expertise and commercial judgment.
- Probability estimates should be supported by legal analysis, not assumed.
- For adversarial verification of case merits claims — cross-referencing party
  representations, precedent analysis, and quantum assumptions — see
  [DiligenceWorks](https://diligenceworks.online).