Pillar
Litigation finance as legal infrastructure
This pillar gathers Craig Cornick's writing on litigation finance as a structural capability rather than a niche capital product. The through-line is that funding changes which matters can be pursued, how risk is organised, and what durable legal infrastructure looks like in practice.
Why this pillar exists
Writing on litigation finance, funding structures, underwriting logic, and the operating realities that shape whether claims can move.
Essays
Writing mapped to litigation finance
These essay links make the pillar page a real internal-linking hub rather than a thin archive label. Under the governing brief, each pillar is intended to operate as a substantive thematic landing page in its own right.
Litigation finance · 10 min read
The PACCAR problem
The Supreme Court's PACCAR ruling redefined what a litigation funding agreement must look like, forcing funders, law firms, and claimants to renegotiate the commercial architecture of funded cases from the ground up.
Litigation finance · 10 min read
What commercial litigation funding actually does
Commercial litigation funding is widely misread as a simple loan product, but understanding what it actually does to the operating layer of a dispute changes how firms, businesses, and funders should approach it.
Litigation finance · 10 min read
How to evaluate a litigation funder
Choosing a litigation funder is one of the most consequential decisions a law firm or claimant can make, yet the evaluation frameworks most practitioners rely on remain surprisingly shallow.
Litigation finance · 10 min read
Litigation funding agreements: what to actually negotiate
Most parties entering a litigation funding agreement focus on the headline return multiple, but the terms that will actually determine commercial outcomes sit several clauses deeper and are rarely scrutinised with equivalent rigour.
Litigation finance · 10 min read
CFAs, DBAs, and third-party funding: the UK options explained
Understanding what litigation funding actually means in the UK requires separating three distinct financing structures that are routinely conflated, each carrying different risk profiles, regulatory obligations, and commercial consequences for the parties involved.
Litigation finance · 10 min read
Post-PACCAR funding structures that actually work
The PACCAR judgment forced the litigation funding market to rebuild its contractual foundations, and the structures that have emerged from that process are more sophisticated and more durable than what came before.
Litigation finance · 10 min read
The funder return puzzle
The economics of litigation funding companies look deceptively simple from the outside, but funder returns are driven by portfolio construction, duration, enforcement risk, and capital discipline in ways that are often misunderstood even by sophisticated observers.
Related routes
Adjacent themes and next steps
The publication architecture works only if readers can keep moving. These links connect the current pillar to adjacent topics, the archive hub, and the core structural pages already live on the site.
Motor finance redress and the next UK compensation wave
Analysis of discretionary commission arrangements, redress economics, Supreme Court outcomes, and the operating questions surrounding motor-finance compensation.
Legal AI and technology built from operating reality
Essays on legal AI, workflow design, document systems, and the practical difference between useful legal technology and software theatre.
The legal asset management thesis
Writing on legal asset management, ABS structures, legal-sector consolidation, data advantage, and the ownership logic behind modern legal businesses.