In this podcast series, we undertake interviews with global professionals to discuss different aspects of litigation and litigation funding.
Deminor Litigation Funding welcomes you to join this conversation as we summarise the key elements of the conversations between the Deminor team and these experts, as captured in the podcast transcripts below.
Podcast Preface
In this podcast, Will Taborn (WT), founder and co-director of Taborns, a UK-based legal process outsourcing (LPO) firm, speaks with Alex Marine (AM), Head of Enforcement and Asset Recovery at Deminor. Listen to the full episode above as they explore the current landscape of the global LPO market and discuss how outsourced legal services are transforming international legal practice.
The reason we're diving into this topic today is that legal process outsourcing has become a huge market and has seen significant growth in recent years. While there’s plenty of data circulating online, one particular report from last year suggested that the global legal process outsourcing market could grow tenfold, surpassing $44 billion globally and approximately £130 million in the UK. With that in mind, we’re here to discuss this exciting trend.
Podcast Transcript
AM - Could you start by sharing a bit about your experience and your role in the legal process outsourcing space?
WT - Hi there, Alex. Thank you for the invite; it’s great to be here.
A bit about my background: I started my career as a barrister's clerk, a role I held for about 20 years. During this time I was lucky enough to work in some of the top chambers in the country and served as clerk to the Attorney General.
After that, I was invited to head up the litigation and legal projects arm of a brand-new multinational law firm. In that role, we pioneered legal technology while also offering the usual services law firms provide to big corporate clients, such as FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies.
We also managed some of the biggest civil litigation cases in the UK over the past 15 years. A significant part of our work involved leveraging technology that allowed general counsels (GCs) and heads of legal to track who was doing what, when, and how long it was taking.
What Taborns offers is a turnkey solution for professional services in the legal sector and beyond. Essentially, we provide a way for time-poor professionals to access a broad range of professional services. People have described us as the "Amazon of legal" because of the nature of our offering. While we operate as an LPO—Legal Process Outsource—we call it the "LCO" – the Legal Concierge Outsource.
How do we do it? We operate through a secure portal. This portal is encrypted, entirely off the email chain, and designed to allow professionals to make requests securely and efficiently. It’s a fast and easy way for them to engage and request services, ensuring their data and communications remain protected.
The legal profession, at its core, is a service industry, and at the end of the day no matter whatever role we’re in we are supplying a service. There’s a lot of competition in this space to provide services, and clients have a wide range of options when deciding where to place their work. Taking all of this into account, we can drive efficiency in the industry and help firms operate in a more effective, commercial manner to better serve their clients.
Our typical clients are based all over the world. While we started in the UK, we now operate in the UAE, covering all parts of the region, as well as in India and the Caribbean.
So, what is legal process outsourcing (LPO)? Simply put, it’s the practice of delegating legal work to external providers to increase efficiency and, hopefully, reduce costs. This can range from simple tasks like document review or legal research to more complex offerings, such as deploying advanced legal technologies.
LPO has evolved significantly in recent years. It now encompasses a much broader range of services beyond the traditional use of paralegals. These include expert witnesses, translation and transcription services, risk management, and e-discovery, to name a few, all available in one place for a client to request.
AM - Thank you for explaining what LPO is. To put this LPO service into context, what kinds of efficiencies are you targeting? Or perhaps, what specific inefficiencies within the legal sector are you trying to address?
WT - There’s a lot of wastage, Alex. It’s generally accepted in the legal sector—and across all commercial sectors, for that matter—that a significant amount of time is wasted. The challenge is getting law firms to work more commercially and in a way that their clients truly appreciate.
For example, one of the reasons we created the Legal Concierge Outsource and founded Taborns was because of a lack of efficiency exists. A study—conducted fairly recently by the American Institute of Psychology—which showed that 30% of the working day is lost due to unproductive work. Improving efficiency and service delivery should be a key priority for any firm.
In a legal context, where billable hours are the standard (but it’s changing), losing that 30% can translate into a lot of amount of money over time. But more than the financial impact, it creates significant inefficiency.
That was one of the key drivers for what we built: enabling fee earners, partners, and lawyers in firms to focus on complex, higher-value work and less on the non-strategic, lower-level, or, if I can say, "menial" tasks, to help firms across the board operate more effectively.
AM - On the UK market, you mentioned that while you work globally, you started in the UK. What is the current status of the UK market? How big is the market for legal process outsourcing here?
WT - The current size of the market for LPO needs to be viewed in the broader context of the UK legal market and its global role.
Revenue generated by legal activities in the UK hit its highest level in 2023, reaching around £44 billion. That figure was up 8% from the previous year, which highlights the sector’s steady growth. It’s also worth noting that the legal sector is a significant contributor to the UK economy and ranks as the second largest legal market in the world, behind the USA.
In terms of the LPO market specifically, it contributed approximately £130 million to the UK legal market over the past year. This figure demonstrates that LPO is growing steadily, and it’s projected to expand even further in the coming years.
AM - You’ve talked about the UK market, but where do you see most of the demand these days? Is it primarily in the UK? You mentioned the market is continuing to grow, but where do you see the highest demand—would that be in the UK, Europe, or UAE?
WT - I think the demand is global. When you consider that the USA and the UK are the two largest legal economies, we’re already making significant strides ahead of much of the rest of the world.
If you look at the rest of Europe and the UAE, I believe they’ll react quickly to these trends. And let’s not forget, many law firms are global, so the adoption of legal process outsourcing will likely accelerate quite significantly over the next few years.
Additionally, we all know how many disputes and litigations ultimately end up in the UK because of the fairness and equality of the UK legal system.
AM - Just to get a better understanding of the market, what types of LPO services are you seeing the most demand for, whether that’s in the UK or globally?
WT - The types of services that get outsourced, both in the UK and globally, tend to follow some common themes—as is often the case with these things. There are also some areas that should see more outsourcing but haven’t yet.
The strongest areas are transcription, translation, and paralegal resources. These remain in high demand. Expert witnesses are also very strong because they can truly turn a case. From our experience, construction experts are a huge commodity. We’ve delivered these services globally and continue to see significant demand for them. This ties back to the fact that the UK expert witness market is world-renowned.
Another key area is e-discovery. There’s a misnomer that e-discovery is only for litigation, but it applies to all matters, contentious and non-contentious alike. For any firm looking to deliver efficiency and retain talent—by making their teams' lives easier, for example—e-discovery, in my view, is a must.
Many firms still operate under the mindset of, "This is the way we’ve always done it," and resist change. However, there’s now increasing pressure from savvy clients who expect more. That old mindset doesn’t cut it anymore.
So, those are the main areas I see as being strong now, and I believe they will be the key growth drivers in the coming years.
AM - I’ve also noticed that there are regional differences in the types of services that get outsourced. For example, if you look at the US literature on this, some of the commonly outsourced services include things like drafting pleadings and attending motions, which are the US equivalents of applications and petitions here in the UK.
In contrast, in the UK, the services being outsourced seem to align more closely with what you’ve just described. So, there’s definitely a regional variation in outsourcing trends.
What I also found particularly interesting about what you mentioned earlier was the demand for construction experts. I suppose this ties into construction disputes, which often tend to be arbitrated rather than litigated.
Clearly, it’s not just about litigation. It’s about dispute resolution more broadly—whether that’s arbitration, litigation, or even mediation. Would you agree with that, Will?
WT - Absolutely. Something people often don’t realise—something we’re seeing with our clients as well—is that expert witnesses can actually help bring a dispute to an early close. They can bring some much-needed sense to a matter before it gets out of hand.
When you look at this in the context of delivering value to a client, it becomes really important. Law firms need to understand that these services can contribute to early resolution or help smooth the path of a case. This can also, let’s say, "sweeten the pill" of any bills the client receives because they can clearly see the value being delivered.
That said, in some ways, what we’re offering is selling something that doesn’t physically exist. I always use the analogy of a mechanic working on your car. You can see the mechanic working and servicing the car.
What we supply, however, isn’t something you can see working until it’s been delivered and the results are there. This selling of the intangible can make it difficult for clients to initially get their heads around the concept.
But as clients continue to put pressure on law firms—saying, "Well, we could take our work elsewhere"—firms are being forced to provide a discernible factor and a key differentiator. That’s where these types of services can really help.
AM - You’ve used the word “pressure” a couple of times—pressure on clients, specifically in the context of disputes or resolving them. Could you expand a little on the types of pressure clients face, in your experience?
WT - Sure. There are different types of pressure depending on the client, because at the end of the day, there are different kinds of clients.
For example, take two broad categories off the top of my head. First, the corporate client—whether it’s a head of legal, a general counsel, or the corporate owner—they face significant budgetary pressures. They don’t want to see their budget frittered away on legal expenses or any needless, wasted costs. It doesn’t matter whether it’s legal or not; they need to know where their money is going.
Interestingly, this mindset really took hold after the 2008 financial crash. At that time, finance directors (FDs) and general counsels (GCs) in big corporates started asking tough questions: "Hold on a minute, where is this money going? Is it being wasted?" That’s when the focus on driving efficiency and accountability in legal spending really started to ramp up.
On the other hand, you’ve got smaller businesses or even individuals—the “man on the street.”
They face similar pressures, but it’s all relative. Whether they’re managing their business, or on the cusp of litigation, they still have budgets. They face the same downward pressure to control costs, and everybody knows that costs—across the board—have gone up. These pressures affect everyone.
When you step back and look at it, both ends of the spectrum—the big corporates and the smaller clients—are instructing law firms. This means that law firms need to react to these pressures. They need to become more efficient, show they’re being efficient, and be able to say to clients: "We’re not just delivering legal work—anybody can do that. We’re delivering a service that adds real value."
So, those are the types of pressures I’m referring to: pressures on clients, which filter down to the law firms.
AM - Our next question touches on the traditional billing models at law firms. The traditional model, of course, is the hourly billing structure. There’s been a lot of discussion in the market about moving away from that model and developing new billing strategies or structures.
What progress have you seen on that front in recent years? And what role does LPO play in that shift?
WT - That’s a really interesting question. The whole point about billing models, I think, is that there’s a general acceptance that offering a fixed price can really help clients by providing cost certainty—regardless of whether they’re a big corporate or a smaller client.
That said, the hourly rate still has its place. Sometimes you simply can’t get away from it, and that’s completely acceptable; it’s not necessarily a problem.
Where the LPO and LCO models come in, however, is in the ability to scope out work more effectively. This enables law firms to give clients greater cost certainty. For example, if you’ve got a technology tool—let’s take e-discovery as an example—you know you can deliver the work more quickly and more efficiently. That means you can increase your ROI while demonstrating real value to the client.
So you can say to the client, “Yes, we’re charging you by the hour, but because we have this tool, it’s only going to take us this long.” Or, “Yes, we can offer a fixed price because we’ve invested in technology that enables us to do so.”
By doing this, you’re effectively telling the client: “We understand this is going to cost you, but we’re working to make it as efficient as possible. We’ve invested in tools and processes that benefit you directly.”
What this means is that LPO and our Legal Concierge Outsourcing allow law firms to step back, scope work more accurately, and deliver a cheaper or more certain cost to the client.
AM - Would you say there’s more flexibility in the market these days in terms of the billing structures law firms can offer clients? And would you agree that LPO plays a key role in enabling that flexibility?
WT - Absolutely. You’re seeing a rise in boutique firms, which are specifically built to drive efficiency—that’s the reason they’ve been set up. Then you’ve got the ABS model (Alternative Business Structures), where non-legally trained professionals can own or manage law firms. That drives commerciality and innovation.
On the other hand, you’ve got the big players—the Silver Circle and beyond—and they, too, need to work more efficiently because there is competition there. So yes, I’d agree: there’s definitely more flexibility in the market now.
And then, if you consider the litigation funding market, if you’re funding a matter, you want to know exactly where your money is going. You want to be sure the money is being spent in the most efficient way possible by the law firm.
So why wouldn’t you turn to the law firm and ask: “What have you got in place to drive efficiency? Do you have e-discovery tools? Who’s doing this work, and how is it being managed?”
AM - Absolutely. In the funding world, we have to be very commercial about disputes and how funds are being spent. If there’s a sensible, efficient team running the case, that’s a big plus when it comes to making a funding decision.
Now, what is the current take-up of LPO among law firm clients? Do you still see some resistance or perhaps a lack of understanding of the model? What trends are you observing in the market?
WT - The attitude of law firms towards LPOs is varied, Alex. If we look at it from the top down, it tends to become more positive as you move further down the spectrum.
Starting with the Magic Circle and Silver Circle firms, they often have their own in-house e-discovery tools, paralegal teams, and other resources. Yes, there is some uptake of LPO there, but they generally prefer to handle things internally and do their own thing.
Where we really see the LPO model working best is with the national firms, boutiques, and in the ABS world (Alternative Business Structures). That’s where the highest uptake is happening. In the national firms, it’s typically on a department-wide scale, whereas in the boutique firms, it’s often firm-wide.
Why is this the case? Well, it all comes back to value—clients want to see value delivered by their law firms. As we discussed earlier, this drive for value can be traced back to the 2008 financial crash, which sparked a fundamental change in how clients approach legal costs. It’s all filtered down over the years to the point where firms have no choice but to react. In many respects, it’s a case of “change or die.”
I was lucky enough to see the cutting edge early on and witnessed how FTSE 100 companies wanted to operate. I knew it would eventually filter down, and while I wouldn’t call myself prophetic, it certainly has.
An interesting anecdote that I never anticipated when setting this up is that one of our clients views what we deliver as an employee benefit. Why? Because by providing tools that enable fee earners and employees to hit their targets and work more efficiently, firms can actually retain talent.
The knock-on effect is significant: retaining talent provides stability, which helps firms retain their clients through continuity. Additionally, it prevents talent—and potentially valuable client relationships—from walking out the door.
This has become particularly relevant with the rise of flexible working, where workflows can often feel disjointed.
AM - Would you say this is a trend that’s being increasingly recognised in the market—that the benefits of LPO go beyond just efficiency and cost savings? It’s also about talent retention and client retention as a natural consequence.
How widely accepted is that view now? Are these additional benefits well-recognised in the market, or is there still some way to go?
WT - Yes, the recognition in the market is definitely growing. You can see that reflected in the numbers we discussed at the beginning of this chat—it’s growing steadily.
However, there’s a note of caution to be had here. There’s a risk of overreliance on LPO, and while I won’t go into specific stories, there are some cautionary tales emerging. Like any tool, it’s exactly that—a tool. It’s not the be all and end all.
That said, as acceptance of LPO grows, we’re seeing new areas emerge under this umbrella. For example, general workflow automation is expanding. As I mentioned earlier, e-discovery is a good example. It’s not just for litigation anymore; it’s also being used to effectively run paper-heavy matters, such as M&A transactions, where tools like data rooms come into play.
So, yes, as LPO becomes more widely accepted, we’re seeing more and more areas of legal work coming under its umbrella of scope.
AM - Can you share any examples of services you’ve delivered that have really worked for your clients?
WT - Of course—no problem at all. Obviously, I can’t mention specific names, but it’s worth noting that all our terms and conditions are drafted with a regulatory approach in mind. They mirror what a law firm would present to its clients, ensuring everything remains confidential and very much under the radar.
I can share a couple of examples to give some context.
We recently worked with a law firm client who was approached by a US national. This individual had lent $2 million to a friend, but the friend had gone missing and ended up somewhere in the UK. The client’s goal was to recoup the money, and they initially approached the law firm seeking litigation funding.
When we looked at the case, we advised that litigation funding wasn’t the first step. Instead, the immediate priority was to establish the strength of the case, and where this individual was located in the UK.
The client didn’t know where the person was, so we stepped in. We began by locating the individual and identifying what asset class the money was tied to. Once that was established, we rolled in counsel’s advice to assess the strength of the case. Only then, if favourable, would litigation funding come into play.
We steered the entire process, helping the law firm navigate these complexities while taking the operational burden away. This allowed the firm to focus on delivering for their client, while we coordinated all the necessary elements behind the scenes.
Another example involved a very high-profile matter in the construction sector, representing a large company and its board members. We were asked to source an expert who was not only highly specialised—and quite rare—but also available on short notice.
We successfully produced a piece of work that enabled the law firm to adequately represent the board, mitigate any damage caused, and present a strong position to the other side. This was particularly important for managing regulatory matters and addressing the challenges posed by opposing parties, who, for want of a better phrase, were “coming after them.”
Another case—again high profile—involved a firm representing a client in a claim against one of the largest companies in the hospitality sector globally. Here, we implemented an e-discovery solution for the law firm. This solution allowed them to take on a highly organised, efficient approach to managing vast amounts of data.
Our role involved plugging in the e-discovery ecosystem, collecting and organising the data, integrating it into the system, and providing the necessary training. By doing so, we enabled the law firm and its fee earners to focus on higher-value, complex matters that truly benefited their client. Once the matter concludes, we will securely dispose of the data if needed.
These examples highlight how we leverage the strengths of experts and advanced tools within our network to deliver value. By doing this, we save time, reduce costs, minimise workloads, and significantly increase efficiency for the law firms we work with.
This allows fee earners to focus on what they do best: delivering strategic, high-value work for their clients.
AM - I’d like to go back to something you mentioned earlier. In the context of LPO services and the examples you’ve given, you noted at the very beginning that there are still some areas where the take-up is perhaps not as strong as in others.
Would you mind sharing a few examples of where you see that happening—where the take-up of LPO services is perhaps not where it should be?
WT - I think it’s less about a lack of take-up and more about where LPO services fit into the lifecycle of a matter that comes to a law firm. The issue is that it often tends to be reactive rather than proactive.
We provide a proactive service—although it can be reactive if needed—but it’s far better utilised when approached proactively. What we’re seeing is a continued trend where, due to time pressures on fee earners and partners, firms come to us later in the process when, ideally, they should be coming to us first.
To draw a comparison, it’s similar to how it works in chambers: you get counsel on board immediately to help reduce risk. It’s the same principle here. Working with a client or running a law firm is about reducing risk, and if you can take a proactive approach, you can significantly reduce that risk.
To give you some real-world examples:
We recently worked with a client who had access to our service and was using it. However, one of their fee earners came to us saying, “I need litigation funding.” That’s fine—we got the details of the case, the merits were strong, and everything looked good. But then we asked, “When’s the trial?” The answer: “Two months.”
At that point, it’s too late to be effective. You’re on the back foot, scrambling to work reactively, trying to put something in place in a very short timeframe. That’s not ideal.
Now, compare that with a proactive approach: if they had come to us first, we could have explored options early, created more time, and delivered a far smoother process.
Another example is overheads. No one wants to keep a paralegal sitting around doing nothing—especially if you’re a boutique firm or a newly formed ABS. If you start using up your in-house resources on one matter and later realise that other matters are slipping, you’ve created a problem.
What you should do instead is say, “Right, this matter is going to demand a lot of our in-house resources. Taborns, we need two paralegals to assist.” We would then deploy them for you, lightening the load and keeping everything on track.
A third example would be e-discovery. If you get halfway through a matter and realise there’s just too much paperwork, the client will start complaining about fees. You’ve got people trawling through documents manually, page by page, and that’s both inefficient and expensive.
At that point, asking to implement e-discovery halfway through the matter isn’t particularly useful either. It should have been put in place from the start to save time, money, and frustration.
So, the point I’m making here is this: it’s about being proactive. If you’ve got access to an LPO service—ours or any other provider—use it early. Engage with the service right from the start.
AM - I think this really resonates with what I do as well in the litigation funding and enforcement space. It always helps to think about these things in advance and get your ducks lined up early. Sometimes, all it takes is just a conversation with someone like us or someone like you about the options on the table. Even that early discussion can help the client start thinking strategically and avoid situations where, as you said, a trial is looming and the client has run out of funds.
Now, one last question from me. You mentioned earlier—halfway through our conversation—that you’re not prophetic, but I was wondering whether you have any prophecies to make about where the LPO market is heading in the next three years.
What kind of novel services might be developed? Or are there services already being developed as we speak?
WT - Obviously, I would say the LPO market has the potential to go stratospheric, but I think it really comes down to what law firms want and where their priorities lie. Let’s use the words “hot topics”—they may not necessarily align with the specific services we offer but are more tied to what the firm’s goals are.
For example, firms that want to be more efficient, reduce costs, increase profitability, and retain talent—to stop that talent from exiting and potentially taking clients or work with them—will need to embrace new approaches.
A lot of the change, I think, will also lie with the lay client. Law firms will increasingly need to adapt to what clients want. If clients are savvy and understand what they need, they’ll start demanding more value and efficiency, which will force firms to respond. A good law firm and a good solicitor will identify those client needs, engage with them, and provide solutions.
So while I don’t see any one particular area of LPO going stratospheric in isolation, I do think the model as a whole will continue to grow. That growth will be driven by a greater awareness among law firms—realising the value LPO delivers—and among clients, who will increasingly demand that value.
AM - Thank you so much, Will. It has been very helpful. Incredibly interesting conversation. Thank you so much.
WT - Pleasure, Alex. It's been good to chat. And thanks for having me.
Podcast Speakers and Further Information:
Thanks for joining Deminor's Litigation Funding Podcast Series as we dive deep into core topics in funding litigation.
Keep a lookout for our upcoming conversations as the Deminor team speaks with several more experts to get their insights into different aspects of litigation funding.
If you would like to connect with either Will or Alex on LinkedIn, please click on the links below:
Will Taborn, Managing Director at Taborns – https://www.linkedin.com/in/willtaborn/
Alex Marine, Head of Enforcement at Deminor – https://www.linkedin.com/in/alex-marine/
***
Further Reading:
- https://www.deminor.com/en/case-studies/co-funder-proposes-sharing-of-litigation-funding-risk-to-leverage-deminors-in-house-due-diligence-capability
- https://www.deminor.com/en/case-studies/financing-assertion-of-patents-protecting-manufacturing-processes
- https://www.deminor.com/en/case-studies/telecoms-patent-assertion-multi-jurisdictional-campaigns
- https://www.deminor.com/en/case-studies/canadian-innovative-start-up-preparing-for-a-david-v-goliath-litigation-funding-battle
- https://www.deminor.com/en/case-studies/whats-the-risk-assessing-the-risk-of-counter-assertion-by-the-defendant-in-patent-litigation
- https://www.deminor.com/en/case-studies/overstepping-the-mark-litigation-funding-trade-mark-infringement
- https://www.deminor.com/en/case-studies/lights-camera-action-recovering-damages-for-infringement-of-rights-in-a-short-film
- https://www.deminor.com/en/case-studies/recovering-damages-for-stolen-software-through-litigation-funding
- https://www.deminor.com/en/case-studies/funding-in-the-pharma-sector-/-investing-in-a-case-where-litigation-is-already-ongoing
