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

Webinar: Litigation Finance and Claim Monetization for the In-House Attorney

By Kevin Skrzysowski • September 10, 2026
For most companies, the legal department is viewed purely as a cost center—a line item to be managed and minimized. But many organizations are sitting on significant, unrealized value in the form of affirmative claims: lawsuits they could bring against suppliers, vendors, or competitors who have breached a contract, stolen trade secrets, infringed intellectual property, or otherwise caused recoverable damages. All too often these valuable claims go unpursued because litigation is expensive, unpredictable, and competes with the business for budget and headcount. Certum Group, in conjunction with the Corporate Counsel Business Journal, created this one-hour webinar to show in-house counsel how litigation finance changes that calculus— allowing companies to pursue meritorious claims with little or no out-of-pocket cost and on a non-recourse basis, so the downside risk shifts to the funder while the company retains the upside. Our panel brought together leaders in commercial litigation, intellectual property litigation, and legal academia and demystified how litigation finance works and walked through practical, real-world uses for the corporate legal team. We also took a close look at claim monetization: the ability to receive cash today against the value of a pending or contemplated claim, rather than waiting years for a judgment or settlement. Monetization can take the form of an upfront advance secured by the expected recovery, or an outright sale of the claim to a specialized organization that then prosecutes the case and collects the judgment. Attendees left with an understanding of when litigation finance and monetization make sense, how to evaluate and pitch a case, what to expect from the process, and how these tools can transform the legal department from a cost center into a genuine contributor to the bottom line. Watch the full webinar replay HERE . Supporting Materials: Litigation Finance Guide In-House Survey Research Brief Trade Secrets Playbook

Trade Secret Filings Just Hit a Record. Here's Why.

By Patrick Dempsey • September 1, 2026
This is the first post in Certum Group's seven-part series bringing our Trade Secret Litigation Playbook to the blog. It draws on Part I of the Playbook, Why Trade Secret Claims Matter Now. Read or download the full Playbook here . In 2025, federal trade secret filings reached an all-time high — roughly 1,551 new cases in U.S. district courts, up from 1,203 just two years earlier. 1 That is not a blip, and it is not a quirk of the docket. It is the visible edge of a structural shift in how companies create value and how easily that value now walks out the door. Trade secrets used to be the quiet cousin of the intellectual property family — patents got the valuation multiples, trademarks got the brand meetings. That era is over. For a lot of growth-stage companies, the trade secret portfolio can be worth more than the patents, copyrights, and trademarks combined. It rarely shows up on the balance sheet, and it is almost never insured against the risk it actually faces — which is not that someone will design around it, but that someone will take it. So it is worth understanding why the numbers are climbing, because each driver points to a specific exposure that a business owner can do something about. Employees move more, and faster The single largest source of trade secret disputes is not corporate espionage. It is ordinary talent mobility. Roughly 60% of misappropriation cases involve a departing employee, typically heading to a direct competitor. Tenure has shortened, remote work has normalized discreet cross-company job searches, and the volume of departures that touch sensitive information has grown accordingly. The prototypical case a decade ago was a sales rep leaving with a customer list. Today it is a design lead, a data scientist, or a process engineer carrying the company's hardest-won know-how — sometimes in a file, more often in their head. The cost of taking information has collapsed A USB drive, a personal cloud folder, an auto-forwarded email rule, a screenshot script — what once required filing cabinets and a truck now takes a few minutes. The technical friction that used to deter casual misappropriation is largely gone. That has two consequences. It makes the taking easier, and it makes the forensic trail richer: badge records, git commit histories, egress logs, and download timestamps now tell a story that is often more persuasive to a judge than any witness. The evidence exists. The question is whether the claim holder preserves it before it rolls off a ninety-day retention setting. AI has raised the stakes Machine-learning models are trained on data, code, and process knowledge that is frequently proprietary. Competitors racing to ship an equivalent product have a powerful incentive to shortcut the long, expensive path of independent development — and in software, life sciences, financial services, and advanced manufacturing, a six-to-twelve-month head start can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. When the crown jewels are unpatented know-how, misappropriation is not a nuisance. It is an existential competitive event. Apple's 2026 trade secret suit against OpenAI — built around aggressive hiring from Apple's hardware teams — is only the most visible example of a pattern now playing out across the economy. A single, credible venue Finally, the law itself has changed the calculus. Since 2016, the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act has given claim holders a nationwide cause of action, federal discovery tools, and remedies strong enough to matter — including an extraordinary ex parte seizure procedure. 2 Enforcement is more predictable than it was under a patchwork of state statutes, and predictability attracts plaintiffs. It also attracts capital, which is where a firm like ours enters the picture. What it means for you From the underwriter's chair, the trend line is unambiguous: more valuable secrets, more mobile employees, cheaper theft, and a legal framework that rewards claim holders who move deliberately. The companies that fare worst are the ones that treated their secrecy program as a compliance checkbox and discover, only in a complaint, that it was the strategy all along. The companies that fare best have thought about identification, preservation, and enforcement economics before they ever need them. If your business runs on information other people would love to have, the record filing numbers are not abstract. They are a forecast. Go deeper with the Playbook. This post covers one piece of a much larger picture. For the full framework — what the law requires, what a strong pre-filing case looks like, how damages experts value these matters, how counsel fee structures change your economics, and how litigation finance fits in — read Certum Group's Trade Secret Litigation Playbook , our field guide for business owners and the counsel who advise them: certumgroup.com/the-trade-secret-playbook . And if you are evaluating a live dispute — or simply want to pressure-test what a matter is worth and how it might be funded — get in touch. A confidential conversation with Certum is free and carries no obligation, whether or not you ultimately seek funding. Reach us at certumgroup.com/contact-us . Sources 1. Lex Machina, Trade Secret Litigation Report (2026), reporting an all-time high in federal trade secret case filings in 2025; see also Lex Machina, Trade Secret Litigation Report (2024) (1,203 federal filings in 2023). 2. Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-153, 18 U.S.C. Section 1836 et seq.

Will Marra Interviewed in Article on Third-Party Litigation Funding Disclosure Debate

By Certum Group Team • August 31, 2026
Certum’s William Marra was recently quoted in an article by MLex, a LexisNexis publication, on the widening debate over third-party litigation funding disclosure. “Litigation finance is the capital markets come to law,” Marra told the publication, emphasizing that funders are one of the few sources of capital available to an individual or small business facing a far larger opponent.  Responding to claims that litigation funding is a vehicle for foreign influence, Marra observed that “there’s just no evidence [of foreign influence] in the third-party funding space,” emphasizing that any real threat should be addressed through regulation covering foreign influence in litigation “in all of its forms.” The article also referenced Marra’s forthcoming New York University Law Review article on the third-party funding disclosure debate, which argues that any court-made disclosure rule should apply evenhandedly to all outside financing, and should not target only one form of third-party finance. “If you want to genuinely have a third-party litigation funding disclosure rule, then disclose all forms of third-party funding. Don’t just disclose the type of non-recourse litigation funding seeking money damages that is disproportionately used by poor individuals and small businesses.” The full article, Patent Litigation Drawn into Broader Third-Party Funding Disclosure Debate, is available here .