June 30, 2023

How Do Companies and In-House Departments Assess Legal Risk?

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter


Kevin Skrzysowski

|

June 30, 2023

Certum Group, which provides bespoke risk transfer solutions for companies facing the uncertainty of litigation, has launched its second annual Litigation Risk Survey to understand how companies and in-house departments assess litigation risk.

Last year, general counsel and other in-house leaders from across more than 50 different industries responded to questions related to their department’s litigation activities and legal spend, tolerance for litigation risk, and knowledge of the solutions available to help transfer risk and monetize claims, among other issues.

“The goal of this survey is to better understand the risk-related issues facing in-house departments,” said  Kevin  Skrzysowski , Director of Business Development and Marketing. “We want to learn what risk factors companies are facing so we can work with them to make sure they have the resources, knowledge, and tools to assess and mitigate litigation outcome risk.”

In-house legal departments have said they face 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.

We learned last year that 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 survey results showed that the size of the company and the size of the legal department do not necessarily correlate and provided further evidence that in-house lawyers and law departments are stretched thin

Nearly 45 percent said they did not have enough resources to pursue litigation. Companies have insurance that covers litigation expenses, but very few of them are actually using their policies. Most say insurance is used less than 10 percent of the time in litigation.

We also discovered that most in-house departments carry a substantial litigation workload. 75 percent 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 not currently pursuing active affirmative litigation. And of the remaining respondents, the overwhelming majority are engaged in only a handful of plaintiffs-side matters.

Most companies shared they attempt to find affirmative claims themselves. Less than one-third receive help identifying claims from outside counsel and only a handful receive 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. If given the chance, however, nearly half 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.

Nearly 75 percent of respondents said they were at least somewhat familiar with litigation funding, but only five percent say they have used funding. Half of the respondents reached out to funders directly or via funding brokers. Many of the respondents said the cost of funding and/or the structure of funding were the most important factors when choosing among funders.

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.

We’re curious what has changed in the last year, what other risk factors we’ll discover, and more insights that in-house counsel will share with us.

To respond to this year’s survey,  click here.

This article originally appeared on lexology.co m

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

People in a meeting room, sitting around a table, brainstorming. Glass wall reflects outside.
By Certum Group Team December 4, 2025
Certum Group, a leader in litigation risk management, is pleased to announce the launch of Certum Legal Solutions (CLS), a managed services organization (MSO) that helps law firms handle their day-to-day operations. CLS expands Certum Group’s platform beyond litigation finance and insurance into technology-driven operational support for law firms. With this launch, Certum is now the only provider to offer funding, insurance, and operational services through a single, integrated platform. Built by trial lawyers and experienced legal operations professionals, CLS delivers end-to-end support for mass tort and single-event litigation practices, including intake, pre-litigation investigation, plaintiff discovery support, settlement claims processing, and client communications. The CLS platform leverages proprietary and heavily customized tools such as integrations for rapid medical record collection, a mobile client app, automated document workflows, electronic signature systems, and an in house call center to streamline case management and boost efficiency. CLS currently manages thousands of cases for law firm clients across the United States and is designed to scale quickly to meet changing caseloads while maintaining control and delivering a consistent client experience. “Our clients have long relied on Certum to mitigate litigation risk and financial risk; with Certum Legal Solutions, we can now mitigate operational risk as well,” added David Diamond, Managing Director at Certum Group. “Because CLS is built the way trial lawyers think about building cases, from intake to resolution, firms get a turnkey, technology forward solution that measurably improves efficiency and outcomes,” said Asim M. Badaruzzaman, CEO of Certum Legal Solutions. CLS originated from a services operation launched in 2024 and was acquired by Certum Group in 2025. The new business line uses a customized fee for service model that aligns pricing with the scope and value of each engagement, allowing firms to avoid the capital costs and staffing requirements of building these capabilities themselves. While the initial focus is on mass tort and single event, Certum plans to extend CLS capabilities to additional practice areas over time, further expanding the company’s comprehensive approach to funding, insurance, and operational support. For more information, please contact: David Diamond Managing Director, Certum Group ddiamond@certumgroup.com Asim M. Badaruzzaman CEO, Certum Legal Solutions asim.badaruzzaman@certumlegalsolutions.com
A gavel rests on top of a stack of US one-hundred dollar bills.
By Kirstine Rogers November 6, 2025
The recent legislative push—then retreat—to impose a tax on litigation funding returns didn’t change the law, but it clarified what’s at stake. It shined a spotlight on the solution that litigation funding provides for the legal industry and to intellectual property owners. Litigation finance doesn’t present a taxation loophole to close. It’s a process that allows plaintiffs with strong claims—and limited resources—to make it to the courthouse steps. In the IP world, where the costs of litigation can eclipse the means of most inventors, startups, and universities, non-recourse litigation funding often is the only way to level the playing field. The investment risks for funders are high; the returns shouldn’t be penalized. The right policy response isn’t punitive taxation or blanket disclosure of sensitive funding terms, but acceptance of funding as a necessary tool and tailored transparency under the court’s supervision, so that financial disparity doesn’t become a tactical weapon.  The goal is simple: Keep the courthouse doors open while maintaining fairness and integrity in the adversarial system.
Statue of Lady Justice holding scales and sword, blindfolded.
By W. Tyler Perry October 23, 2025
It feels like every couple of weeks an article appears lamenting the rise of litigation finance as the death of capitalism and the birth of something monstrous. The most recent chorus began over the summer when the CEO of Chubb called litigation finance “ a hidden tax on society ” in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. A month later, the CEO of The Hartford grieved on an investor call that litigation finance has “turned our judicial system into a gambling system.” And just last month, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association ’s Senior Vice President of Federal Government Relations exclaimed: “Too many baseless claims, filed by lawyers motivated by profit are clogging our legal system with unnecessary lawsuits, increasing costs and delaying swift resolution of genuine legal claims.”  As someone who has been a big firm defense lawyer, a small firm plaintiff lawyer, and now a litigation funder, I can confidently say that these arguments fundamentally misunderstand litigation finance and its incentives, while simultaneously conflating the interests of large repeat defendants with those of society writ large.