Two Approaches
How litigation capital gets priced.
The litigation finance industry divides into two fundamental underwriting philosophies. The difference determines who benefits from your capital — and who is left exposed.
Industry Standard
Relationship-Based
Capital deployed based on attorney relationships, firm reputation, and collateral.
—
Pricing determined by negotiation, not case data
—
Returns reflect counterparty leverage, not case merit
—
No systematic win-rate analysis by judge or jurisdiction
—
Funder's track record is opaque — no published methodology
—
Adverse cases repriced or exited based on intuition
—
Disclosure of pricing rationale uncommon
Criterica Capital
Outcomes-Based
Financing evaluated against predicted case outcomes, trained on legal data.
—
Evaluation derived from reliable outcome models, not negotiation
—
Assessment reflects case probability, not who you know
—
Win-rate analysis by judge, circuit, district, and case type
—
Full transparency: published methodology, ethics opinions, state rules
—
Adverse development triggers model re-underwriting, not gut calls
—
Investors can audit our evaluation against published frameworks
The Data Moat
Evaluation built on what actually happened in court.
Criterica Capital's underwriting is built on real court records, verdicts, settlements, dismissals, and appeals, not surveys, not intuition, not counterparty relationships. Every case type, every judge, every jurisdiction has a measurable outcome record. That record is what determines our evaluation.
Relationship-based funders price based on what they know about the attorney and what they've seen in similar cases. That creates a pricing floor determined by network access, not case merit. Criterica Capital's models are trained on legal data, which means our evaluation reflects the actual probability distribution for your specific case type, in your specific jurisdiction, before your specific judge. That is a fundamentally different approach.
Case-level
Evaluation
Outcome models trained across jurisdictions, case types, judge assignments, and practice areas, so the evaluation reflects your case, not a category average.
Court record
Judge Profiles
Judge profiles built from case history — not peer surveys. Every judge in our active coverage has a measured outcome record.
4
Jurisdictions
Outcome model coverage in the US, Canada, UK, and Australia, with models validated for each jurisdiction separately.
Transparency
What we publish.
Institutional buyers, law firms, and regulatory bodies are demanding more transparency from litigation funders. Criterica Capital leads on disclosure, not as a differentiator, but as a baseline standard.
Who Sets Terms
How capital providers set rates and terms for each product (pre-settlement funding, law firm capital, commercial litigation finance) and what to check in an agreement. See our Pricing Transparency page.
Underwriting Criteria
We publish the factors that go into case evaluation: liability strength, damages methodology, collectability, duration, and jurisdiction win rate.
State Licensing Status
The state-by-state regulatory landscape — which states require licensing, which prohibit consumer funding, and who the regulators are.
Ethics Opinions
ABA and state bar guidance on litigation funding, attorney disclosure obligations, and fee-splitting rules — all compiled and publicly accessible.
Responsible Funder Standards
Six published standards: non-interference, transparent pricing, simple interest only, no hidden fees, attorney independence, regulatory compliance.
Case Outcome Validation
Our models are retrained on real outcome data as cases close. We track how reliably each model predicts against actual results, and publish our validation methodology.
Credibility Signals
Verifiable, not claimed.
ILFA Standards
Practices aligned to the International Legal Finance Association's principles.
Simple Interest Only
The standard to look for is simple interest, not compounding. Rate disclosure should be a condition of every funding agreement.
No Interference Clause
The standard to look for is a non-interference provision in every agreement. Criterica Capital has no role in case strategy or settlement decisions.
Ethics Opinion Library
ABA Model Rules + 9 state bar opinions, compiled and published. Attorneys can verify the standards.
State-by-State Compliance
Agreements should be structured to the rules of the state where the claim sits. Full regulatory landscape on our State Licensing page.
Attorney Review Required
A funding agreement should be reviewed by the client's retained attorney before execution.