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

name

description

litigation-funding-case-screener

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

# 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.