Smart Contracts in Litigation Finance: Hype or Reality?

"Technology is best when it brings people together." - Matt Mullenweg

From digital payments to blockchain-driven banking, technology has transformed how we handle money. Now, it’s beginning to reshape how we approach justice. 

Enter smart contracts - self-executing codes that automatically enforce agreements on the blockchain. They’ve been hailed as revolutionary across industries, promising transparency, speed, and trust without intermediaries. 

But in a space as intricate and unpredictable as litigation finance, can such contracts really live up to the hype? Or are they just another passing trend in the ever-evolving world of legal technology? 

This blog explores the real-world relevance, limitations, and potential of smart contracts in the litigation funding ecosystem - especially in a complex market like India. We look at the facts, cut through the buzzwords, and separate what’s visionary from what’s viable. 

The Landscape of Litigation Financing in India 

Globally, litigation funding reached an estimated $12.2 billion in 2022 and is expected to grow to $25.8 billion by 2030, with a CAGR of around 9%. In India, the idea gained ground after the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in Bar Council of India v. AK Balaji, which confirmed that third-party litigation funding is permissible. 

Several states, including Maharashtra, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh, have amended the Civil Procedure Code to include third-party funding provisions. This gives legal standing to funders entering agreements with claimants, an essential condition for enforceability. 

Despite this, litigation in India remains slow and expensive. According to the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business report, resolving commercial disputes takes an average of 1,445 days, with legal costs often amounting to 31% of the claim value. With over 43 million pending cases, funding has become a practical necessity, particularly in high-value insolvency and arbitration disputes. 

This combination of legal ambiguity, process inefficiencies, and rising costs sets the stage for innovation.  

The Gap Smart Contracts Aim to Fill 

The idea behind the evolution of such contracts is simple but powerful: agreements written in code, executed automatically once conditions are met. Think of them as digital “if-this-then-that” triggers, eliminating the need for middlemen or lengthy verification processes. 

In litigation finance, they could offer several efficiencies. For example: 

• Automating milestone-based fund disbursals 

• Triggering escrow releases upon verified court orders 

• Ensuring transparent and tamper-proof revenue distribution among claimants, funders, and legal professionals 

  
  

Consider a recent example: A supplier based in India secured a ₹1.2 crore claim through an insolvency resolution process in under 120 days, achieving a 75% recovery rate. If each funding milestone and distribution payout had been coded into a smart contract, the time and overhead of reconciliation could have been drastically reduced.

In such scenarios, these can serve as a complement, adding speed and transparency where possible, without replacing the core legal processes 

Why Smart Contracts May Not Yet Be Ready 

Despite their theoretical appeal, they still face significant hurdles in litigation finance. 

 These practical limitations make them unsuitable for managing entire funding arrangements - at least for now. 

Can a Hybrid Model Be the Middle Path? 

A full transition to blockchain-based automation isn’t feasible in litigation finance today. But a hybrid model offers a promising bridge. 

Here’s what that could look like: 

• The core agreement remains a legally valid digital or paper contract 

• Easy to manage pre-agreed, fixed processes, such as releasing disbursed amounts after a case filing or distributing returns after award enforcement 

• Off-chain arbitration clauses are retained to resolve any code execution errors or disputes 

  
  

For example, in cross-border commercial disputes where enforcement certificates are standardized and public, which could trigger escrow releases automatically, provided reliable digital verification exists. 

Such a model retains the flexibility of human judgment while allowing automation to reduce administrative drag and human error. 

Real World Use Cases and Current Developments 

The Indian litigation funding ecosystem is still evolving, but there are signs of movement toward tech-led transformation. 

According to industry reports: 

• Over 3,000 cases in India have been supported through funding agreements in recent years. 

• Approximately 70% of funded cases globally return more than the principal investment. 

• The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India reports over ₹67,000 crore recovered by creditors in FY25 through approved resolution plans, many of which relied on timely legal funding. 

  
  

For example, in a commercial insolvency case involving a supplier's ₹1.2 crore claim, resolution was achieved within 120 days through pre-pack bidding reforms. In such a scenario, automating milestone-based disbursals through blockchain logic could streamline post-verdict processes, provided legal standards are met. 

In international arbitration, especially with institutional processes like ICC or SIAC, digital verification of outcomes is more standardized, opening doors for smart contract integration in post-award distributions. 

However, none of these use cases has yet matured into widespread adoption, primarily due to legal, operational, and technical barriers. 

Is Smart Contracts Hype or Reality for Litigation Finance? 

At this point, these are best viewed as a promising addition, not a replacement for the litigation funding process. 

They are real, functional, and already deployed in other financial sectors like insurance and supply chain. But litigation involves subjective decisions, changing facts, and judicial discretion, which code alone cannot handle. 

Their best use lies in automating fixed, predictable tasks: milestone-based disbursals, escrow triggers, or multi-party revenue splits, all under the oversight of enforceable legal agreements. 

Until Indian law provides clearer guidance and until court data becomes reliably machine-readable, the role of such contracts will remain limited but meaningful. 

Contact Us

Conclusion 

We hope this blog has helped you evaluate whether smart contracts are overhyped or genuinely applicable in the context of litigation finance. 

The answer, like most things in law and technology, lies in the grey area. They are a powerful tool, but only when applied to specific, clearly defined functions. While the legal industry is traditionally cautious, innovation driven by necessity often finds its way in. As court processes modernize and funding arrangements become more structured, a new wave of legal automation may emerge. Until then, their journey in legal finance is one of cautious exploration, not full adoption. 

At LegalPay, we believe in enabling smarter, faster access to justice by combining legal expertise with responsible innovation. While we focus on delivering efficient litigation funding solutions, we remain open to leveraging technology that enhances transparency, reduces delays, and benefits claimants and funders alike without compromising legal integrity. 

“At LegalPay, we don’t just fund justice - we future-proof it.” 

FAQ’s (Frequently Asked Questions)

1. What is litigation funding, and how does it work? 

Litigation funding is a financial arrangement where a third party provides capital to cover legal costs in exchange for a portion of the eventual recovery. It enables individuals or businesses to pursue legal claims without bearing the financial burden upfront. This is especially valuable in high-stakes commercial disputes, arbitration, or insolvency matters where legal fees and court processes can be lengthy and costly. If the funded party wins the case or receives a settlement, the funder receives an agreed share. If the case is lost, the funder typically absorbs the loss. Litigation funding is non-recourse, meaning repayment is only required if the case succeeds. In India, while still evolving, this model is gaining recognition after favorable court opinions and regulatory clarity. It's increasingly being seen as a way to democratize access to justice and level the playing field between financially unequal parties. 

2. Why is the legal industry exploring blockchain-based automation? 

The legal industry is increasingly looking at blockchain technology because it offers unique benefits like transparency, tamper-proof record keeping, and automated execution of predefined processes. Traditional legal systems often involve delays, human error, and administrative overhead, especially in areas like document verification, escrow release, and milestone tracking. Blockchain-based tools can reduce this friction by ensuring that agreements and records are immutable and easily auditable. In litigation finance, for instance, where timelines and payments must align with case progress, such automation can improve efficiency. However, legal workflows are often complex and require discretion, which makes total automation impractical today. Still, many forward-thinking legal service providers are exploring ways to blend blockchain features with existing contract structures to strike a balance between innovation and flexibility. The goal is to simplify transactional workflows without compromising legal validity or the human judgment essential to justice. 

3. What are the challenges of applying automation to legal funding? 

While the legal funding process is ripe for innovation, applying automation faces several barriers. One of the main challenges is legal uncertainty. Courts require clear intent, mutual consent, and compliance with contract law, all of which can be difficult to capture in automated logic alone. Another issue is flexibility: litigation is rarely linear. Cases get appealed, settlements change, and timelines shift. Automation tools are rigid by nature and can struggle to adapt to such unpredictability. There's also the problem of data input. Legal events, such as verdicts or court orders, are not always available in real-time digital formats, making integration difficult. Finally, privacy is a major concern, especially when dealing with sensitive client or case data. All of this makes fully automated systems risky in high-stakes scenarios. That said, automation is still useful for simpler tasks like escrow management or calculating interest and penalties if designed responsibly. 

4. Are automated legal tools enforceable in Indian courts? 

In India, the enforceability of digital tools in legal contracts is still evolving. The Indian Contract Act requires a clear offer, acceptance, lawful consideration, and mutual consent. While electronic contracts are generally valid under the Information Technology Act, any tool that operates without human oversight may raise concerns around legal intent and fairness. So far, there hasn’t been a landmark court ruling specifically affirming or rejecting automated tools in funding agreements. However, many legal professionals acknowledge that technology can assist in executing contract terms provided that the underlying agreement is legally sound and the automation process is transparent. Courts are more likely to recognize such tools when they are used to support, not replace, traditional legal processes. Therefore, while tools that perform automated actions are not illegal, their enforceability may depend on how well they align with established contract principles and whether both parties fully understand their operation. 

5. How can blockchain improve dispute resolution in finance? 

Blockchain has the potential to enhance dispute resolution by bringing more transparency, trust, and speed to financial transactions. One key benefit is the creation of tamper-proof records, which can reduce disagreement over terms and payment history. In cross-border finance or complex commercial claims, this can serve as an auditable source of truth. Additionally, conditional automation, where outcomes are linked to external triggers like regulatory filings or verified court updates, can streamline processes that currently require extensive manual coordination. This can be particularly helpful in multi-party disputes or funding agreements with layered payouts. However, blockchain is not a silver bullet. Its effectiveness depends on how well it integrates with legal frameworks, judicial systems, and the specific financial models in use. Without proper oversight, its complexity could even add friction. Therefore, it’s best applied in scenarios where processes are repetitive, data is reliable, and rules are clear from the start. 

6. What role can technology play in reducing funding risks? 

Technology can help reduce risks in legal funding by improving accuracy, speed, and transparency across the deal lifecycle. For instance, platforms can use AI and machine learning to assess the viability of claims, analyze legal precedents, and predict timelines. Automation can also ensure that payments, milestone checks, and compliance reviews happen consistently and on time — lowering the risk of human error or fraud. Additionally, digital dashboards can offer funders real-time visibility into how a case is progressing, which is critical in managing exposure and performance metrics. However, the effectiveness of these tools depends on data quality, process design, and legal compatibility. Poorly implemented technology can increase risks rather than mitigate them. For tech to truly reduce risk, it must support, not replace, the legal due diligence, documentation, and judgment that are core to any litigation funding deal. 

7. Is the Indian legal system ready for technology-led funding models? 

India’s legal system is slowly adapting to technology, but there’s still a long way to go. E-courts, online case tracking, and digital filings have made progress, yet they vary widely by region and court level. While the government has shown interest in legal innovation, most court processes still involve physical documentation and manual updates. For technology-led funding models to succeed, certain prerequisites must be met: accessible and accurate court data, legal recognition of digital agreements, and acceptance by judges and lawyers. The recent push for digital reforms under initiatives like the National Judicial Data Grid is encouraging, but inconsistencies remain. Still, India’s massive case backlog and the high cost of litigation create urgency for solutions that improve efficiency. Over time, as infrastructure and policy evolve, the legal system is likely to become more open to technology, especially when it improves access to justice and reduces procedural delays.