Skip to content
JusFund
Menu
Back to homepage

01 · The problem

A strong claim should not stall
for want of capital.

Arbitration funding remains fragmented. Fund seekers often depend on introductions, while funders receive case materials in different formats and spend significant time establishing what matters. JusFund creates a structured route from the case record to professional funding review.

US$299bn
aggregate amount in dispute across ICC cases pending at year-end 2025
1,869
ICC cases ongoing at year-end 2025
20 months
median duration of an LCIA arbitration

Sources: ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics 2025 · LCIA Costs and Duration Analysis

Statement of Claim

02 · Read

Drop the file.
It reads the record.

  1. Read
    Processes uploaded pleadings, contracts, correspondence, exhibits and scanned documents.
  2. Organise
    Identifies document types and structures the case record.
  3. Extract
    Identifies parties, claims, amounts, key events and supporting passages.
Case record · document
Extracted fact

Governing law and seat

Supporting passage: Arbitration agreement · clause reference
Extracted fact

Payment obligation and due date

Supporting passage: Contract · clause reference
Extracted fact

Notice of dispute and response

Supporting passage: Correspondence · dated letter

Important extracted facts are linked to supporting passages in the record. When submission fields are blank, JusFund can propose values from the uploaded documents. Information supplied by the fund seeker remains authoritative.

03 · Research & assessment

AI does the reasoning.
Code does the scoring.

Your case record
Relevant public sources

JusFund combines these sources to assess eight weighted areas, checking legal frameworks for relevance. The model explains each finding. Versioned code performs the averaging, weighting, adjustments, caps and classification.

  • · Insufficient information remains Unscored, rather than becoming a silent zero.
  • · Any holistic adjustment is limited, recorded and accompanied by reasons.
  • · Defined overrides are applied in code, with raw and final values remaining visible.
  • · Every assessment records the scoring-framework version used.

The framework is checked for internal consistency by a second model but is not yet statistically calibrated against a representative dataset of concluded-case outcomes.

Eight weighted areasWeighted · framework version recorded

Segment widths indicative of relative emphasis. Exact weights are recorded with each assessment's framework version.

Every assessable area is scored with reasons and cited to sources, never a silent number.

Merits of the legal claimsCore
Quality and sufficiency of evidenceCore
Quantum and damages recoverabilityCore
Procedural and jurisdictional integritySubstantial
Enforcement prospectsSubstantial
Counterparty riskRefining
Tribunal, seat, institutionRefining
Exogenous and strategic factorsRefining
Specimen · one sub-criterionIllustrative
Quality and sufficiency of evidence

Documentary support for the payment obligation

Payment terms are clearly defined in the contract. Delivery evidence is complete for all but one milestone.

Contract · clause 14.2 · record pp. 31 to 34
7.5 / 10

Illustrative example, not a live assessment. Actual sub-criteria, reasons and citations vary by case.

From reasoned assessments to code aggregation
Reasoned sub-criteria
Weighting and adjustments
Overrides and caps
Classification
Model: reasoning and citations · Code: all arithmetic · Output: Band A to E

04 · Verify

Then it is challenged.
By a second AI model, from a different provider.

Deterministic checks review the report's calculations, citations, quoted passages, structure and applicable legal frameworks. A second model from a different provider, the AI Judge, then examines the assessment for contradictions and unsupported conclusions. Identified issues can be returned for correction and re-review.

The verification status remains attached to the report: Passed, Passed with notes or Failed. The fund seeker reviews the complete assessment before deciding whether it should be listed.

Assessment report · framework version recorded
Assessment report
PASSEDVERIFICATION
AI Judge · second model, different provider
  • Calculations
    weights, averages and classification recomputed
  • Citations
    each traced to the stored source set
  • Quoted passages
    checked against the case record
  • Structure and frameworks
    required sections present, frameworks relevant
  • Second-model review
    contradictions and unsupported conclusions

05 · Your result

Never
a bare number.

Read the reasons behind the assessment: what supports your claim, where the risks lie and what evidence is still needed.

If there is too little information to assess the claim, you receive an incomplete-assessment notice.

Read sample assessment
Assessment overviewIllustrative
BandB
Assessment score66%Range 56–76%
ConfidenceMedium

Supporting evidence

The contract records the payment obligation.

Key risk

Part of the amount claimed is disputed.

Evidence to add

Documents supporting the disputed amount.

The score and range assess the record, not the chance of winning. Confidence reflects the evidence available. Research output, not legal or financial advice.

06 · Funding review

From record to funding review.
With the fund seeker in control.

AssessedSource-linked reportFund seeker reviewFull report, verification statusListed with consentAnonymised, progressive disclosureFunder diligenceTheir own reviewDirect negotiationParties contract directly

Swipe to follow the full workflow.

With your permission, approved funders can review your case summary. Full report access follows your approval through the NDA process. Funders conduct their own diligence; the parties negotiate and contract directly.

07 · What JusFund does, and does not do

The technology, the assessment and the introduction workflow. The decisions stay with the parties.

Does not deploy capital

JusFund is not a funder and never funds a claim itself.

Does not advise

No legal, financial or investment advice. The assessment is a research tool.

Does not decide

Fund seekers choose whether to list. Funders make their own funding decisions.

Does not guarantee

No assessment implies funding, a calibrated prediction or a successful outcome.

  • AI-generated assessments clearly identified
  • Fund-seeker review before listing
  • Consent-based, progressive disclosure
  • Approved professional funders
  • KYC, KYB and AML at the required transaction stage
  • No retail investors
  • Parties conduct their own diligence and contract directly
I have a claim

Know where your case stands.

Review the assessment before deciding whether to approach funders through JusFund.

Start your assessment
I fund claims

See the case behind the claim.

Review case summaries and assessments. Request access to the full report for cases you want to examine further.

Request funder access

JusFund does not fund claims and never provides capital. Funding comes from independent professional funders who make their own decisions and contract directly with you.