March 7, 2025

“Show Me the Money” – Diverse Teams are a Revenue Driver and Not Just the Right Thing to Do

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter

Kirstine Rogers

|

March 7, 2025

Certum’s Legal Director, Kirstine Rogers, co-authored an article with Molly Pease of Curiam Capital, an important article for the Legal Funding Journal to recognize International Women’s Day.

—

As our country continues to debate the pros and cons of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the government and private sectors, the litigation finance industry would be well served by remembering that diverse teams make companies better.  Indeed, several studies have explored the link between diversity initiatives and increased profitability in organizations and found that a more diverse workforce can positively impact business performance, innovation, and profitability.

There are many reasons for this.  First, representation matters.  Whether it is getting a phone call for a potential new investment opportunity from a female general counsel who wants to see diversity in the team she might be working with or being able to hire top talent who want to work with a diverse team, better opportunities present themselves to litigation finance market participants when those firms present a diverse and capable team.  Second, a diverse team allows for more diverse networking opportunities, which encourages investment opportunities from a wide variety of sources.  And finally, and potentially most importantly, diversity of backgrounds, skills, and expertise allows for a risk assessment in underwriting investment opportunities that is less likely to miss potential risks or pitfalls that a more narrow-minded team might not see.  Better underwriting decisions result in better investments, which results in more revenue for the company.

Diversity need not be a mandate for it to be an intentional and profitable choice.

“If you build it, they will come.” 

Does your company reflect the world of your counterparty or their counsel?  

Research has shown that consumers are more likely to buy from or engage with businesses that appear to understand their specific needs, often through shared demographic traits like race, gender, or age.  Businesses that reflect their target consumers’ characteristics and values are more likely to foster trust and client loyalty.   The same is true in commercial transactions with counterparties and their counsel.  In entering into a funding agreement, you are forming a potentially long-term partnership.  Communication and trust are essential to the success of that relationship.  You only maximize the likelihood of that success with the diversity of the decision makers on your team.   

Companies with inclusive environments are also more likely to attract top talent and retain employees.  Why wouldn’t a firm cast the widest net possible?

“Nobody puts baby in a corner.” 

Having a diverse workforce also increases opportunities for connection and visibility in the market.  It provides a vehicle for commonality – a shared experience, history, or perspective.  This is because similar backgrounds make it easier to communicate, share common goals, and find mutual interests, which in turn can lead to individual career opportunities and company-wide growth.

Diversity-based industry groups like the Women of Litigation Finance (WOLF) facilitate interaction between market peers, provide leadership and speaking opportunities, and lead to collaboration between companies seeking to work together.  Bar associations also frequently have smaller diversity-based committees that provide a smaller community from which to network and form connections.  Bigger fish. Smaller pond.  Stronger bond.  And these genuine connections formed on shared experiences can lead to exponential networking growth.  A familiar face at one industry event only leads to more familiar faces at the next one.  

This is true for thought leadership too.  If every member of a panel of speakers looks the same and does not reflect the different faces in the audience, there are people in that audience your panel is not reaching.  If every article is written from the same perspective, there are readers who are not listening.  

“You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”  

At its core, the litigation finance industry assesses risk.  The better a firm can do that – whether it is a funder, a broker, or an insurer – the more profitable it will be.  Risk assessment involves seeing things that others might miss and making sure no stone gets left unturned.  

There are many components of a due diligence risk assessment, including reviewing the strength of the legal merits of the claims, assessing the credibility and testifying potential of key witnesses, and predicting what arguments or defenses will be presented by opposing counsel.  A diligence team with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives will be better at identifying risks and assessing the value of potential claims.  For example, a funder will often speak extensively with key witnesses to assess how they would present testimony at trial and whether a jury would find that testimony credible and persuasive.  If a trial team were conducting a mock jury to test these points, it would assemble a diverse panel of men and women from different ages and backgrounds to get various views on the testimony.  Similarly, a funder trying to make its own internal assessment will be better served by a diverse team with a variety of perspectives.  If everyone in the room has the same basic background, characteristics, and experiences, they are likely to see things similarly and thus miss key factors that could be important in determining the impact of the testimony.  And this is only one aspect of a risk assessment.  Each step of the diligence and risk assessment process would benefit from analysis by a diverse team.  The biggest concern in the litigation finance industry is that a funder, broker, or insurer misses a significant risk in their assessment of a legal asset and finds themselves funding an investment that has a low chance of success in hindsight.  A diverse team will protect against this outcome and therefore drive revenue for industry participants.

“You talkin’ to me?” 

At the end of the day, the value of meaningfully implemented diversity initiatives is clear.  Having the benefit of differing experiences and perspectives makes companies better.  And, as to litigation finance in particular, diversity without question strengthens the return on investments. 

But just having a diverse workforce does not necessarily result in a better company or improved profitability.  The company needs to foster an inclusive environment where diverse perspectives are valued and integrated into decision-making processes and where those selected as thought leaders demonstrate how diversity is implemented, prioritized, and integrated into company culture.

In honor of International Women’s Day, make this a call to action – what can you do at your company to ensure you have the broadest perspectives represented?  Ask yourself, does the panel you are sponsoring completely reflect your target client base?  Does your leadership team include those with different perspectives?  Does your company provide women with networking and mentoring opportunities? 

After all, diversity presents an opportunity for someone at your company to collaborate with other market participants to write an article just like this.  

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

Chris Seidl Named to IAM Strategy 300 List of Leading IP Strategists

By Certum Group Team • August 13, 2026
Certum Group is pleased to announce that Chris Seidl has been named to the 2026 IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists list. IAM Strategy 300 is a global ranking of IP strategists who are leaders in developing and implementing strategies to maximize the value of IP portfolios. IAM identifies individuals through extensive research annually. Chris leads Certum’s IP finance strategy, including IP licensing, litigation funding, and acquisitions. This is the fifth consecutive year Chris has been included on the IAM Strategy 300 list.  Click here to see the complete rankings.

How Lawyers Can Use AI Effectively and Responsibly

By Certum Group Team • August 4, 2026
Artificial intelligence is quickly changing how legal work is researched, drafted, reviewed, and delivered. But while AI can improve efficiency, it also creates serious risks, including inaccurate analysis, fabricated citations, and potential court sanctions.  In this webinar, Certum Group brings together legal and business experts to discuss how lawyers can use AI to strengthen their work without compromising accuracy, professional judgment, or accountability.

Tips for Lawyers’ Effective and Responsible Use of AI

By Certum Group Team • July 29, 2026
Artificial intelligence is transforming all corners of the economy, and the legal profession is no different. At first it seemed the stories about AI and the law were all negative, as many lawyers , even those at some of the most prestigious firms , found themselves sanctioned for filing briefs with hallucinated cases. More recently, the news cycle has turned, as existing law firms embrace AI and new firms sprout to deliver AI-first legal services. Just recently, top lawyers from Kirkland & Ellis and Quinn Emanuel each left to launch their own law firms. Meanwhile, Kirkland, the AmLaw 1 firm, announced it would invest $500 million to develop its own proprietary AI system. [ Click here to read a Bloomberg article by Certum’s Will Marra on what Kirkland’s AI announcement means for the future of third-party legal finance.] This can be dizzying for many lawyers. Clients want them to use artificial intelligence. Competitor law firms are using AI. But the risks of misusing AI are high and can even include sanctions and media coverage that gives lie to the old adage that “all news is good news.” A Transformative New Tool To help lawyers navigate this landscape, Certum Group recently hosted a webinar to help lawyers navigate the landscape. Our featured speaker was Michael Showalter , founder of Showalter PLLC, a litigation firm built around AI tools, and a former appellate lawyer at Gibson Dunn and Wiley Rein. The conversation was led by Suneal Bedi , Certum’s Scholar in Residence who is a professor at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business. This was the first in a series of conversations that Professor Bedi will lead designed to help Certum’s clients navigate the toughest challenges they face today. In the webinar, Showalter demonstrated the power of AI by sharing several moments that “blew his mind” over the past year: A first draft of a law review article that was better than what he’d get from most junior lawyers. T urning a project that once took 100–150 hours into roughly only 15. A flawless table of authorities, table of contents, and cite-check on a brief, produced in about ten minutes. He noted he’d never once received a flawless table of authorities from a human paralegal. Sophisticated legal reasoning; identifying an overlooked antecedent argument in a forthcoming Yale Law Journal article showing the tools do real analysis, not just “automatable” formulaic work. He now estimates he accomplishes in a single day what would have taken him 40 hours of work back in 2022. Three key takeaways emerged from the webinar. To Be a Good Lawyer With AI, First Be a Good Lawyer AI cannot replace legal judgment, but it can amplify it. Lawyers should not outsource the job of lawyers to an AI model. They should treat the models instead like highly capable but error-prone junior associates. This means they should ensure the model has sufficient context about the legal issue they’re asking it to address. And you should give senior-lawyer leadership and oversight to its work. You should also treat AI errors as inevitable, the same way junior lawyers will inevitably make mistakes. Be vigilant to when the model gets something wrong, fix the error, and do what you can to avoid the error from recurring in the future. And you should iterate constantly. AI workflows cannot be completed in a single prompt. Lawyers should consistently redline and comment on the AI’s outputs to refine and perfect the work product. Guard Against Hallucinations and Errors Lawyers are rightly concerned about the prospect that AI may rely on fabricated cases. The webinar offered some candid commentary on this issue: First, the technology has changed dramatically between 2024 and 2026. The incidence of hallucinated and fabricated cases is much rarer today than in the past, partly because the frontier labs have focused on addressing this problem. Second, verification tools now exist. Tools like Veritas now exist to compare every quote in a brief against its primary source, catching errors rather than predicting text. Third, senior oversight remains non-negotiable. Lawyers should not assume an AI will accurately describe a case any more than they should assume a junior associate will do so. Lawyers should read and review every case they cite for accuracy and reliability. Meet Your Clients’ Expectations and the Courts’ Requirements Finally, it is clear that the market is shifting towards the expectation that lawyers will use AI. Even the most sophisticated clients are now demanding that their clients use AI. And they are relying on the existence of AI to push down rates and demand that simpler tasks get outsourced to artificial intelligence. For example, Sebastian Niles, the President and Chief Legal Officer of Salesforce, recently published an article arguing that the integration of AI into law firms should be a baseline expectation. [Harvey AI’s CEO, Winston Weinberg, was recently the keynote speaker at an NYU Law School conference co-organized by Professor Bedi and Certum’s Will Marra. Click here to learn more about the takeaways from that conference.] At the same time, courts have stepped in to closely police how law firms are using AI. Some courts are even amending local rules to regulate the use of AI in legal filings. To be a great lawyer today and tomorrow, lawyers need to stay on the cutting edge of artificial intelligence. Clients demand it, and courts do too. Lawyers should continue to educate themselves about how to best use AI to improve and amplify their work, but not to replace it.