Last
week,
I
presented
Part
1
of
my
written
interview
with
a
former
litigator
turned
legal
funding
founder,
Lauren
Harrison.
That
column
presented
her
answer
to
the
first
of
my
three
questions
and
focused
on
the
lessons
from
her
practice
as
a
litigator
that
help
inform
her
current
work.
What
follows
are
Lauren’s
answers
to
my
remaining
two
questions.
As
usual,
I
have
added
some
brief
commentary
to
her
answers
below,
but
have
otherwise
presented
her
answers
as
she
provided
them.
Gaston
Kroub:
From
your
perspective
as
a
funder,
where
are
the
biggest
needs
for
IP
groups
and
boutiques
right
now
when
it
comes
to
adding
talent?
Lauren
Harrison:
The
single
biggest
need
I
see
is
for
firms
to
focus
on
nurturing,
valuing
and
hiring
meaningful
trial
talent.
There
is
a
growing
generational
divide
in
the
profession.
When
I
came
of
age
as
a
litigator,
my
mentors
were
seasoned
trial
lawyers
who
had
come
through
the
ranks
trying
dozens
of
cases
a
year.
The
industry
has
changed
and
those
opportunities
have
dwindled.
To
say
that
most
complex
commercial
and
IP
cases
resolve
before
trial
is
an
understatement.
The
statistics
are
stark.
Depending
on
which
resource
you
consult,
figures
show
that
1%
or
fewer
of
federal
and
state
court
civil
cases
that
don’t
settle
are
resolved
at
trial,
down
from
anywhere
from
5%
to
20%
decades
earlier.
Oftentimes
the
denial
of
dispositive
motions
prompts
settlement.
I’ve
seen
materials
suggesting
that
among
litigators
with
at
least
five
years’
experience,
fewer
than
30%
have
ever
been
to
trial,
and
fewer
than
10%
have
tried
two
or
more
cases.
I
don’t
know
how
accurate
those
figures
are,
but
they
are
consistent
with
what
I
have
seen
in
my
career.
From
a
funder’s
perspective,
the
experience
gap
matters.
The
cases
we
finance
require
not
just
strong
legal
theories
but
the
confidence
and
capability
to
take
a
case
through
verdict
if
necessary.
We
look
for
partners
who
have
the
appetite
to
try
cases,
who
are
comfortable
with
risk,
and
who
are
willing
to
bet
on
themselves
and
their
work.
Law
firms
and
especially
litigation
boutiques
should
be
intentional
about
cultivating
that
kind
of
talent.
Encourage
lawyers
to
take
responsibility
early
and
to
seek
courtroom
exposure.
Firms
that
invest
in
trial
training
and
real
advocacy
opportunities
will
distinguish
themselves
in
the
market,
and
we
already
see
that
in
both
the
funding
world
and
in
the
corporate
world,
where
companies
scramble
for
new
representation
when
it
looks
like
their
cases
actually
will
go
to
trial.
GK:
The
decline
of
trial
practice
opportunities
for
litigators
of
all
experience
levels
is
something
that
should
be
concerning
to
all
of
us.
What
is
striking
is
that
even
in
this
age
of
litigation
funding-driven
patent
litigation,
where
cases
are
vetted
and
deemed
trial-worthy
by
funders
with
a
rigor
that
would
have
been
considered
extreme
when
I
started
my
career,
the
numbers
of
IP
cases
that
actually
reach
a
jury
is
very
small
relative
to
the
number
of
cases
filed.
In
my
view,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
number
of
patent
cases
worthy
of
funding
will
magically
increase
over
time,
so
it
may
be
left
to
funded
clients
taking
the
decision
to
actually
get
their
cases
before
a
jury
for
us
to
see
more
opportunities
for
trial
practice
skill
development
among
the
current
crop
of
IP
litigators.
Alternatively,
IP
lawyers
that
want
to
try
cases
may
need
to
get
creative,
perhaps
by
moonlighting
as
prosecutors
or
handling
pro
bono
matters
as
a
way
of
getting
trial
experience
that
will
later
make
them
more
attractive
when
they
submit
their
IP
matters
for
a
funder’s
consideration.
GK:
What
can
corporate
legal
departments
do
to
maximize
the
benefits
of
litigation
funding
in
pursuit
of
monetizing
their
company’s
valuable
legal
claims?
Corporate
in-house
departments
absolutely
have
a
role
to
play.
Too
often,
valuable
commercial
claims
are
resolved
for
pennies
on
the
dollar
and
IP
assets
go
undervalued
because
litigation
is
viewed
purely
as
a
cost
center.
We
encourage
in-house
teams
to
think
strategically
about
their
claims,
to
recognize
when
an
asset
deserves
to
be
pursued
through
resolution,
and
to
partner
with
firms
who
are
equipped
to
do
that
–
which
are
the
firms
with
the
talent
and
trial
chops
to
share
risk
with
their
clients.
Funding
plays
a
role
here
too.
A
facility
from
a
funder
may
be
earmarked
to
pay
court
costs,
but
cash
is
fungible.
If
a
corporation
retains
a
law
firm
on
a
contingent
fee
basis
to
pursue
a
commercial
claim
or
to
generate
royalties
from
a
patent
portfolio,
they
can
use
litigation
funding
to
cover
expenses,
and
that
funding
facility
transforms
a
contingent
asset
to
cash
on
their
balance
sheet.
Both
counsel
working
on
a
contingent
fee
basis
and
the
funder
have
strong
incentives
to
vet
the
case’s
merit
before
filing
because
both
are
providing
resources
on
a
non-recourse
basis.
This
in
turn
provides
the
client
with
some
assurance
that
it
will
not
waste
internal
resources
pursuing
a
frivolous
claim.
If
the
case
succeeds,
in-house
counsel
have
turned
their
legal
department
into
a
profit
center.
In-house
IP
groups
and
other
counsel
should
encourage
this
sort
of
proactive
thinking
around
claims
as
assets,
and
litigation
boutiques
can
help
their
clients
to
identify
untapped
value.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
a
healthy
litigation
ecosystem
helps
businesses
by
ensuring
that
property
and
contract
rights
are
valued
and
vindicated
correctly.
Experienced
trial
lawyers
are
at
the
center
of
that
ecosystem,
and
I
believe
that
capital
markets
that
level
the
cost
playing
field
are
an
essential
part
of
it.
GK:
Lauren’s
answer
should
serve
as
food
for
thought
for
in-house
counsel
at
all
levels
of
the
business
world.
If
companies
gave
as
much
attention
to
thinking
about
how
to
deploy
their
IP
assets
as
they
do
accumulating
those
assets
in
the
first
place,
perhaps
the
sentiment
that
IP
legal
departments
are
cost
centers
can
be
shifted
to
a
more
balanced
view
among
nonlegal
corporate
executives.
As
Lauren
demonstrates,
in-house
counsel
can
and
should
be
reaching
out
to
funders
and
trial
counsel
for
evaluation
of
their
latent
“legal
assets,”
irrespective
of
whether
those
assets
consist
of
patent
monetization
opportunities
or
breach
of
contract
claims,
as
just
two
examples.
For
their
part,
funders
and
trial
lawyers
can
help
by
being
more
proactive
about
showcasing
examples
where
their
efforts
have
led
to
positive
recoveries
for
companies
that
have
entrusted
them
with
pursuing
their
legal
claims.
Another
benefit
of
highlighting
those
success
stories
is
to
help
counter
some
of
the
anti-litigation
funding
narratives
that
still
pervade
the
public
discourse.
I
am
sure
there
will
be
plenty
of
thought-provoking
and
diverse
perspectives
shared
along
these
lines
at
Signal
Peak’s
upcoming
symposium
on
February
26.
My
thanks
to
Lauren
for
the
insights
and
cooperation,
and
I
wish
her
and
her
colleagues
continued
success
with
their
new
litigation
funding
venture
and
the
upcoming
symposium.
On
a
personal
note,
it
feels
like
a
decade
has
passed
since
I
was
fortunate
to
join
Lauren
on
a
panel
at
a
litigation
funding
conference
just
a
few
years
ago,
illustrating
for
me
how
intensive,
interesting,
and
fast-moving
our
collective
adaption
as
IP
lawyers
has
been
to
the
possibilities
and
challenges
offered
by
the
availability
of
third-party
litigation
funding
for
our
clients
and
fellow
lawyers.
I
have
no
doubt
that
Lauren
and
Signal
Peak
will
help
shape
the
industry’s
progress
over
the
coming
years.
I
am
always
open
to
conducting
interviews
of
this
type
with
other
IP
thought
leaders,
so
feel
free
to
reach
out
if
you
have
a
compelling
perspective
to
offer.
Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at
[email protected]
or
via
Twitter:
@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.
Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at [email protected] or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.