Q&A: Burford Capital's Charlie Rooke on the new economics of UK litigation

Portfolio funding and alternative fees are changing how law firms share the risk and upside of litigation.

Q&A: Burford Capital's Charlie Rooke on the new economics of UK litigation
Supported by
Get the newsletter that keeps lawyers ahead
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Need to know

Charlie Rooke spent six years as a commercial litigator at Freshfields before moving in-house at a bank, and later joining legal finance firm Burford Capital, one of the largest litigation funders, in 2022.

He is now a director and member of Burford’s London underwriting team, where he assesses potential investments across commercial litigation and arbitration. His particular focus is competition disputes, including a growing number of collective actions before the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

We spoke to him about how litigation funding is changing, why large companies are increasingly looking to outside capital to fund disputes, what he looks for when deciding whether to back a case, and how AI could reshape both litigation finance and the economics of law firms.

How has UK litigation funding evolved over the past few years?

Litigation funding is now at a mature stage in the UK. It has moved from conversations around "what is legal finance?" to "how can legal finance support this particular case?"

We ran a survey a few months ago of UK lawyers and found that 73% had direct experience of litigation funding and, perhaps more interestingly, 40% were repeat players.

It's not just claimants who don't have the money to pursue a case. Increasingly, we are talking to large corporations about whether it makes sense to spend their own money on litigation or deploy that capital elsewhere in the business.

Why would a large company use litigation funding when it can afford the legal bill?

If you're a widget manufacturer with a claim against a supplier, for example, you might have £10 million that you could spend pursuing that litigation. But businesses are increasingly asking whether they'd be better off spending that £10 million supporting the business.

Burford can provide monetisation solutions for companies, injecting immediate capital into the business by advancing a portion of the expected entitlement from a pending claim, judgment or award. Businesses can then use that capital as they see fit, including for purposes beyond the legal department.

There has also been a change in what clients expect from law firms. We're seeing more alternative fee arrangements, including conditional fee arrangements, discounted rates in exchange for an uplift on success, damages-based agreements, fixed fees and capped fees.
Funding can sit behind those arrangements and increasingly becomes part of what a law firm can offer when pitching for work.

Has litigation funding changed how much risk law firms are willing to take?

I think funding encourages law firms to have confidence in their convictions. If you're acting on a case that you think is going to win, it can make sense to participate in the upside alongside a funder.

A firm might offer a discounted CFA, taking lower fees while the case is running but recognising that, if the case is as good as they think it is, they can get that discount back plus more. That can ultimately produce a better return than simply acting on an hourly basis.

The trade-off is that the firm gives up some fees in the short term and takes on some of the risk of the case. But if its assessment of the case is right, it gets to participate in the upside rather than simply billing for the hours worked.

What does Burford look for when deciding whether to back a case?

We look at the damages profile, the legal merits, the law firm, the barristers and the economics. Ultimately, we're trying to answer three questions: do we think the case is going to win? If it does, when will it win? And how much will it win?

The sums involved can be significant. In Competition Appeal Tribunal cases, it's not unusual now to see budgets of £20 to £35 million, with capital potentially tied up for long periods. There are relatively few funders able to finance several of these cases at once.

How is AI changing the way you make those decisions?

Burford has 50 lawyers who have worked across UK and international law firms and in-house legal teams, and we have seen thousands of investment proposals. That gives us a significant amount of institutional knowledge to draw on when the next case comes through the door.

Increasingly, we are overlaying that with an AI database containing information from the investments we've looked at across different jurisdictions, types of case, claimants, defendants and law firms.

We also keep monitoring cases after we've invested. It is very hard to predict on day zero exactly how and when a case will resolve, so we feed new developments back into the model as the case progresses to refine those predictions over time.

What does the next phase of litigation finance look like?

We're increasingly working with FTSE 100 and other international companies where using funding is simply a financing decision. At the same time, what funders provide is expanding beyond financing the fees and expenses of a single case. We work with businesses and law firms to fund portfolios of cases, as well as with businesses on monetisation deals.

The other area I think we will see much more of is investment in law firms themselves. AI is going to require firms to invest significant sums in technology. Instead of armies of associates doing document review at £400 an hour for four months, they will build an expensive AI machine to do that work, with lawyers providing the higher-value analysis.

Law firms don't necessarily have access to the investment needed to make that transition. External investment in law firms has been possible for years, but I think AI is going to turbocharge that.

Law Firm
Trainee First Year
Trainee Second Year
Newly Qualified (NQ)
Addleshaw Goddard£52,000£56,000£100,000
Akin£60,000£65,000£174,418
A&O Shearman£56,000£61,000£150,000
Ashurst Perkins Coie£57,000£62,000£140,000
Baker McKenzie£56,000£61,000£150,000
Bird & Bird£48,500£53,500£102,000
Bristows£48,000£52,000£95,000
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner£53,000£58,000£125,000
Burges Salmon£49,500£51,500£76,000
Charles Russell Speechlys£52,000£55,000£93,000
Cleary Gottlieb£62,500£67,500£164,500
Clifford Chance£56,000£61,000£150,000
Clyde & Co£48,500£51,000£90,000
CMS£50,000£55,000£120,000
Cooley£55,000£60,000£157,000
Davis Polk £65,000£70,000£180,000
Debevoise £55,000£60,000£173,000
Dechert£55,000£61,000£165,000
Dentons£52,000£56,000£104,000
DLA Piper£55,000£60,000£140,000
Eversheds Sutherland£50,000£55,000£120,000
Farrer & Co£48,500£51,000£89,000
Fieldfisher£48,500£52,000£100,000
Freshfields£56,000£61,000£150,000
Fried Frank£55,000£60,000£175,000
Gibson Dunn£65,000£70,000£180,000
Goodwin Procter£55,000£60,000£175,000
Gowling WLG£48,500£53,500£108,000
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer£56,000£61,000£145,000
HFW£52,000£56,000£103,500
Hill Dickinson£44,000£45,000£80,000
Hogan Lovells£56,000£61,000£145,000
Irwin Mitchell£43,500£45,500£78,000
Jones Day£60,000£68,000£170,000
K&L Gates£50,000£55,000£115,000
Kennedys£43,000£46,000£85,000
King & Spalding£62,000£67,000£175,000
Kirkland & Ellis£60,000£65,000£174,418
Latham & Watkins£60,000£65,000£174,418
Linklaters£56,000£61,000£150,000
Macfarlanes£60,000£65,000£150,000
Mayer Brown£55,000£60,000£150,000
McDermott Will & Schulte£65,000£70,000£174,418
Milbank£65,000£70,000£174,418
Mills & Reeve£46,800£47,000£84,000
Mishcon de Reya£52,500£57,500£110,000
Morgan Lewis£57,500£62,500£173,000
Norton Rose Fulbright£56,000£61,000£140,000
Orrick£60,000£65,000£170,000
Osborne Clarke£55,500£57,500£97,000
Paul Hastings£60,000£68,000£173,000
Paul Weiss£60,000£65,000£180,000
Penningtons Manches Cooper£48,000£50,000£83,000
Pinsent Masons£54,000£59,000£109,000
Quinn Emanueln/an/a£189,000
Reed Smith£55,000£60,000£135,000
Ropes & Gray£62,000£67,000£170,000
RPC£48,000£52,000£95,000
Shoosmiths£45,000£47,000£105,000
Sidley Austin£60,000£65,000£175,000
Simmons & Simmons£56,000£61,000£130,000
Simpson Thachern/an/a£178,000
Skadden£58,000£63,000£177,000
Slaughter and May£56,000£61,000£150,000
Squire Patton Boggs£50,000£55,000£110,000
Stephenson Harwood£50,000£55,000£105,000
Sullivan & Cromwell£65,000£70,000£177,000
TLT£44,000£47,500£85,000
Travers Smith£55,000£60,000£130,000
Trowers & Hamlins£50,000£54,000£90,000
Vinson & Elkins£60,000£65,000£173,077
Watson Farley & Williams£51,500£56,000£107,000
Weightmans£36,000£38,000£70,000
Weil £60,000£65,000£170,000
White & Case£62,000£67,000£175,000
Willkie Farr & Gallagher£60,000£65,000£180,000
Winston Taylor£56,000£61,000£125,000
Withers£47,000£52,000£95,000
Womble Bond Dickinson£43,000£45,000£83,000
Rank
Law Firm
Revenue
Profit per Equity
Partner (PEP)
1DLA Piper*£3,130,000,000£2,500,000
2A&O Shearman£2,900,000,000£2,000,000
3Clifford Chance£2,400,000,000£2,100,000
4Hogan Lovells£2,320,000,000£2,400,000
5Linklaters£2,320,000,000£2,200,000
6Freshfields£2,250,000,000Not disclosed
7CMS**£1,800,000,000Not disclosed
8Norton Rose Fulbright*£1,800,000,000Not disclosed
9HSF Kramer£1,360,000,000£1,400,000
10Ashurst£1,030,000,000£1,390,000
11Clyde & Co£854,000,000Not disclosed
12Eversheds Sutherland£769,000,000£1,400,000
13Pinsent Masons£680,000,000£790,000
14Slaughter and May***£650,000,000Not disclosed
15BCLP*£640,000,000£790,000
16Simmons & Simmons£615,000,000£1,120,000
17Bird & Bird**£580,000,000£720,000
18Addleshaw Goddard£550,000,000£1,000,000
19Taylor Wessing£526,000,000£1,100,000
20Osborne Clarke**£476,000,000£800,000
21DWF£466,000,000Not disclosed
22Womble Bond Dickinson£450,000,000Not disclosed
23Kennedys£428,000,000Not disclosed
24Fieldfisher£385,000,000£1,000,000
25Macfarlanes£371,000,000£3,100,000

What do City lawyers actually do each day?

For a closer look at the day-to-day of some of the most common types of lawyers working in corporate law firms, explore our lawyer job profiles:

Advertisement
FirmLondon office sinceKnown for in London
Akin 1997Restructuring, funds
Baker McKenzie1961Finance, capital markets, TMT
Davis Polk1972Leveraged finance, corporate/M&A
Gibson Dunn1979Private equity, arbitration, energy, resources and infrastructure
Goodwin2008Private equity, funds, life sciences
Kirkland & Ellis1994Private equity, funds, restructuring
Latham & Watkins1990Finance, private equity, capital markets
McDermott Will & Schulte1998Finance, funds, healthcare
Milbank1979Finance, capital markets, energy, resources and infrastructure
Paul Hastings1997Leveraged finance, structured finance, infrastructure
Paul Weiss2001Private equity, leveraged finance
Quinn Emanuel2008Litigation
Sidley Austin1974Leveraged finance, capital markets, corporate/M&A
Simpson Thacher1978Leveraged finance, private equity, funds
Skadden1988Finance, corporate/M&A, arbitration
Sullivan & Cromwell1972Corporate/M&A, restructuring, capital markets
Weil1996Restructuring, private equity, leverage finance
White & Case1971Capital markets, arbitration, energy, resources and infrastructure
Law firmTypeFirst-year salary
White & CaseUS firm£32,000
Stephenson HarwoodInternational£30,000
A&O ShearmanMagic Circle£28,000
Charles Russell SpeechlysInternational£28,000
FreshfieldsMagic Circle£28,000
Herbert Smith FreehillsSilver Circle£28,000
Hogan LovellsInternational£28,000
LinklatersMagic Circle£28,000
Mishcon de ReyaInternational£28,000
Norton Rose FulbrightInternational£28,000
Law Firm
Trainee First Year
Trainee Second Year
Newly Qualified (NQ)
A&O Shearman£56,000£61,000£150,000
Clifford Chance£56,000£61,000£150,000
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer£56,000£61,000£150,000
Linklaters£56,000£61,000£150,000
Slaughter and May£56,000£61,000£150,000
Law Firm
Trainee First Year
Trainee Second Year
Newly Qualified (NQ)
A&O Shearman£56,000£61,000£150,000
Clifford Chance£56,000£61,000£150,000
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer£56,000£61,000£150,000
Linklaters£56,000£61,000£150,000
Slaughter and May£56,000£61,000£150,000
Law Firm
Trainee First Year
Trainee Second Year
Newly Qualified (NQ)
Ashurst£57,000£62,000£140,000
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner£53,000£58,000£125,000
Herbert Smith Freehills£56,000£61,000£145,000
Macfarlanes£60,000£65,000£150,000
Travers Smith£55,000£60,000£130,000
FirmMerger yearKnown for in London
BCLP2018Real estate, corporate/M&A, litigation
DLA Piper2005Corporate/M&A, real estate, energy, resources and infrastructure
Eversheds Sutherland2017Corporate/M&A, finance
Hogan Lovells2011Litigation, regulation, finance
Mayer Brown2002Finance, capital markets, real estate
Norton Rose Fulbright2013Energy, resources and infrastructure, insurance, finance
Reed Smith2007Shipping, finance, TMT
Squire Patton Boggs2011Corporate/M&A, pensions, TMT
Law Firm
Trainee First Year
Trainee Second Year
Newly Qualified (NQ)
Ashurst£57,000£62,000£140,000
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner£53,000£58,000£125,000
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer£56,000£61,000£145,000
Macfarlanes£60,000£65,000£150,000
Travers Smith£55,000£60,000£130,000
Author of blog post.
Olivia Rhye
11 Jan 2022
•
5 min read
Advertisement