Underwriting economics
A funder’s returns depend on the quality of each assessment and on the number of opportunities it can assess, and each assessment rests substantially on information provided by the parties to the case.
Quality of assessment
A weakness identified at underwriting can be priced or declined. The same weakness identified after commitment can decide the outcome while capital remains committed.
Speed of assessment
A decision-grade view of a case can require weeks of external counsel and expert review, whether or not the case is funded. Reducing that time allows the same team to assess more opportunities and commit to the strongest.
Consistency at committee
When every opportunity is analysed in the same way, cases can be compared on their findings rather than on the quality of their presentation.
The market gap
Legal AI has been developed principally for law firms, for drafting, research and document review. Tools developed for funders largely operate from outside a case, identifying claims in court filings and scoring them against comparable cases. Analysis of the record itself, testing the documents against one another and against the governing law, remains a manual exercise conducted case by case.
“Once a potential opportunity progresses into our pipeline, it is assigned to individual underwriters to conduct extensive in-house due diligence with input from our global team, including comprehensive legal and factual analysis.”
Burford Capital · Annual Report on Form 10-K for 2025, p.15 · filed 26 February 2026
Ameen for funders
Ameen produces a first-pass assessment of the full bundle: a reading of the strength of the claimant’s position, the factors that drive it, and the findings on which the decision turns.
Position strength
Claimant’s positionExample
68/100
Moderately strong
57
Contradictions
10 of high severity
7
Gaps
Documents referenced but not produced
10
Corroboration
Events corroborated by more than one document
Contradictions, gaps and corroboration are counted from this matter’s findings. The score is an example of how the assessment is presented.
The findings that weigh most
NFPA 285 certification rests on a report whose own scope excludes a polyethylene core
Scope conflict
Specification prohibits a polyethylene core; the purchase order buys one
Specification conflict
VE-17 total exceeds the sum of its own line items by $412,000
Arithmetic error
The three highest-ranked of 10 high-severity findings.
Material weaknesses first
Contradictions across the bundle ranked by materiality, so review begins with the issues that could change the decision.
Committee questions answered
Questions raised at committee answered from the documents, without waiting for a further memorandum.
A consistent method
Every opportunity is assessed through the same process, so cases can be compared on a like-for-like basis.
Findings a committee can test
Each point traced to the documents it rests on, so diligence questions are answered from the record. The investment decision remains with the underwriter.
Better-informed decisions, on more opportunities.