March 17, 2026

Tips for Creating and Sticking to Legal Budgets

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter

William Mara

|

March 17, 2026

Litigation is inherently complex, dynamic, and increasingly expensive. Outcomes are difficult to predict, shaped by variables ranging from jurisdiction and judge to opposing counsel, discovery disputes, and motion practice that often unfolds in unexpected ways. In a volatile economic environment, forecasting the cost of a case can feel more like art than science.


Yet budgeting remains one of the most important—and most overlooked—components of successful litigation.


In the litigation finance context, budgets do more than estimate costs. They establish the financial architecture of a case. Funders commit a capped amount of capital for legal fees and case expenses. Law firms allocate resources within that constraint—and are typically responsible for any legal fees incurred above the budget. Meanwhile, claimholders are typically responsible for case expenses incurred above the budget, while their ultimate recoveries may depend on how closely spending tracks expectations. 



A budget that is too optimistic risks early depletion of funds. A budget that is overly conservative may deter funding altogether or unnecessarily suppress a client’s net recovery.


Sound budgeting, by contrast, allows a case to be litigated through key inflection points—and, if necessary, to conclusion—without surprises that undermine strategy or alignment.


Why Litigation Budgeting Is Hard—and Essential


Despite its importance, budget creation is rarely taught in law school and is often learned only through experience. Most lawyers work on an hourly fee without a capped budget. Thus many excellent litigators have spent years trying cases without ever being required to forecast costs across an entire lifecycle.


Litigation finance forces that discipline early. A funding request typically requires counsel to articulate not only the merits of a claim, but also the cost required to prosecute it and the relationship between spend, risk, and expected recovery.


A commonly used rule of thumb is that expected damages should substantially exceed the amount of requested funding. While a 10:1 ratio is often the proposed rule of thumb, a meaningful spread between potential recovery and projected spend helps ensure that funders can achieve target returns, clients can realize meaningful net recoveries, and law firms can be compensated for their work without undue financial strain.


What a Litigation Budget Typically Covers


In funded matters, budgets generally distinguish between legal fees and case expenses, often with separate caps for each.


Legal fees reflect hourly rates and anticipated staffing across phases of the case. Funders may cover a portion of those fees up to a cap, with law firms responsible for the balance and for any spend exceeding agreed limits.


Expenses typically include items such as expert witnesses, discovery vendors, travel, local counsel, and court costs. These expenses are often funded at a higher percentage, again subject to caps. Clear allocation of responsibility above those caps is essential to avoid disputes later in the case.


Core Questions That Drive Realistic Budgets


Effective budgets begin with a clear understanding of the case itself. Among the most important questions:


  1. Scope of the case. How many claims are asserted? Are they tightly focused or sprawling?
  2. Nature of the claims. Certain claims—such as antitrust or patent matters in federal court—are typically more resource-intensive than straightforward commercial disputes.
  3. Jurisdictional considerations. Venue, procedural rules, and potential jurisdictional challenges can materially affect cost and duration.
  4. Damages theory and collectability. How will damages be proven? Are there risks to collection? Are non-monetary outcomes possible?
  5. Expected defense strategy. Will the defendant pursue aggressive motion practice or discovery tactics designed to increase cost and delay?
  6. Staffing model. What mix of partners, associates, and specialists is optimal at each stage?
  7. Time to resolution. Is the case likely to resolve early, or should it be budgeted through trial and appeal?


Discovery: The Largest Variable


Discovery is often the single largest expense—and the hardest to predict.


When budgeting for discovery, it is critical to consider:


  • The scope of discovery permitted in the jurisdiction


  • The volume and sources of potentially relevant documents


  • The complexity of collection, review, and production


  • The number and location of depositions


  • The need for expert testimony, often among the most expensive components of a case


  • The availability and accessibility of key witnesses


Thoughtful planning at this stage can materially reduce cost without compromising litigation objectives.


The Role of Funders in Budget Discipline


Experienced funders can play a constructive role in budget management—not by directing litigation strategy, but by helping track spend against expectations and flagging deviations early.


Regular reporting and periodic check-ins allow counsel and clients to address emerging issues before they become financial problems. Funders also bring cross-case experience across jurisdictions, industries, and claim types that can inform contingency planning and resource allocation.


Tips for Creating and Sticking to Budgets 


Effective litigation budgets are not static documents. They are management tools—designed to impose discipline, anticipate inflection points, and align incentives as cases evolve. In practice, several mechanisms can help law firms and clients create budgets that are both realistic and durable:


  1. Budget precedents. Where available, budgets from comparable matters—whether maintained by the law firm or the funder—can provide a valuable reality check. Historical data from similar cases often reveals cost drivers that are easy to underestimate in the abstract.
  2. Monthly flat-fee structures. Some firms have moved away from pure “fees-as-incurred” models in favor of monthly flat fees. When appropriately calibrated, this approach can smooth cash flow for the firm during slower periods while reducing the risk of budget overruns during more intensive phases of litigation.
  3. Staged funding. Staging capital by phase—such as through a motion to dismiss, summary judgment, or trial—can help ensure that spending remains tied to progress and performance. Phase-based caps encourage early reassessment without forcing premature strategic decisions.
  4. Reallocation flexibility. In some cases, budgets permit limited reallocation between categories, such as legal fees and expenses. When used carefully, this flexibility can accommodate unforeseen developments without requiring wholesale renegotiation of the budget.


Taken together, these tools reinforce what effective budgeting is ultimately about: creating a financial structure that supports the litigation strategy, rather than constraining it.


< 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 .