September 26, 2022

Litigation Risk Survey Finds Large In-House Workloads, Tight Resources and Missed Opportunities to Transfer Risk

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter

Kevin Skrzysowski

|

September 26, 2022

Cover:

In-house legal departments say they are facing growing litigation burdens with limited staffing and financial resources—and yet most have not taken advantage of tools like risk transfer products to help manage workloads and ease budget uncertainty.

The 2022 Litigation Risk Survey, conducted by Risk Settlements in conjunction with In the House, asked general counsels and other in-house leaders around the globe about their litigation activities and legal spend, their tolerance for litigation risk, and their knowledge and use of the potential solutions available to help transfer the outcome risk of litigation.

The vast majority of in-house leaders—more than 80 percent—reported that their departments had 10 or fewer employees, and more than 70 percent said their legal budgets were less than $1 million. The results show that the size of the company and the size of the legal department do not necessarily correlate and provide further evidence that in-house lawyers and law departments are being stretched thin, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The survey also found that most in-house departments are bearing a substantial litigation workload. Three-quarters of respondents said they are currently defending active litigation, and 20 percent have 10 or more cases on the docket. Ten percent of respondents said they are fielding more than 50 active cases.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the tight budgets and small staffs, relatively few of the active cases are plaintiffs-side matters. Nearly half of respondents said they are currently pursuing no active affirmative litigation. And of the remaining respondents, the overwhelming majority are engaged in only a handful of plaintiffs-side matters.

In spite of their resource challenges, the majority of law departments have yet to take advantage of litigation risk transfer products. Most say, however, they are open to using them—particularly to gain greater budget certainty around costs. Two thirds of in-house counsel said they would consider using such products in their businesses in the future. This is especially true of products like litigation funding, adverse judgment insurance, and escrow release.

An effective claims monetization effort could assist GCs under pressure to transform their departments from cost centers into contributors to company profits. But less than a third of in-house leaders said their law departments are actively pursuing affirmative cases. If given the chance, however, nearly half—48 percent—would pursue claims if they were made aware of them, and 54 percent said they would be interested in pursuing affirmative cases regardless of the claim amount.

At present, most companies say they are attempting to locate affirmative claims themselves. Less than one-third are receiving help in identifying claims from outside counsel and only a handful are receiving the assistance of a litigation funder. The data suggests that companies should rely more heavily upon outside help to bring affirmative claims to their attention.

Nearly three-quarters of respondents said they were at least somewhat familiar with litigation funding. But only 5 percent say they have used funding themselves. In-house departments said they have identified funders primarily through referrals from business contacts. Half of the respondents reached out to funders directly or via funding brokers. Another third received referrals from outside counsel or were contacted by funders directly. An equal number of in- house counsel said the cost of funding and/or the structure of funding were the most important factors when choosing among funders.

Of the in-house counsel who have worked with a funder, the most common funding structure—used by 75 percent of respondents—was a contingency fee based upon the ultimate proceeds of a successful recovery. Hybrid structures, with claimants receiving funding via a combination of non-recourse loans and contingency fee arrangements, had also been used by two-thirds of respondents. Forty-four percent who have funded cases have arranged for a non-recourse loan, and 22 percent said they had used a recourse loan structure.

  • Legal Ops. Three-quarters of respondents said their companies did not yet have a legal operations team. And while much of the conversation in the legal industry has been about the role of legal ops in selecting outside counsel, respondents who have legal ops capabilities ranked outside counsel selection last among their key priorities. More important, they said, were finance, technology and strategic planning.
  • Litigation Risk. Fifty-four percent of respondents said they are “somewhat tolerant” of litigation risk. About a quarter of companies are “very tolerant” of risk. And a few—about 7 percent—say their companies are “extremely tolerant,” an answer that may suggest a few companies are leveraging affirmative litigation as a tool for revenue generation. Just over 16 percent—are “not tolerant at all” of litigation risk.
  • Outside Counsel. In-house lawyers surveyed said expertise in the litigation being defended is the most important factor in the hiring process for outside counsel. A prior relationship with the law firm (or their inclusion as panel counsel) ranks second, respondents said. While cost is a consideration, as is the law firm’s flexibility on fees, only 8 percent of in-house leaders said these issues were at the top of their list when making an outside counsel hiring decision.
  • Alternative Fee Arrangements. Alternative fee arrangements in litigation are occurring in about half (49 percent) of cases, the survey found. When they are used, AFAs are occurring more commonly in defense-side matters than in plaintiffs-side cases.
  • Liability Insurance. Companies commonly have commercial liability insurance, but it is rare for them to actually use it to cover litigation costs. By a wide margin, respondents said they relied upon insurance less than 10 percent of the time. Only one in four said they relied upon insurance policies to cover 50 percent or more of their litigation costs.
  • Assessing Risk. Assessing litigation risk remains a responsibility firmly in the hands of the general counsel, respondents said. Asked to rank the most important factors they use to assess risk in defense cases, in-house counsel said the “size of possible damages” and whether the matter is a “bet-the-company” case ranked first. The “likelihood of prevailing” in the case ranked second. When the company is considering bringing an action, however, the factors are reversed. By a wide margin, the likelihood of winning the case was the most important issue for in-house counsel when considering affirmative claims.

Responses to the 2022 Litigation Risk Survey came from in-house counsel in 20 countries, 37 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, and from more than 50 industry sectors.

< 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.