Trending Now
Commercial Funder's Corner Legal Innovation

5 Ways to Retain Top Legal Talent: Why Employees Stay

By Richard Culberson |
December 17, 2024

5 Ways to Retain Top Legal Talent: Why Employees Stay

The following article was contributed by Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America.

The legal profession is evolving rapidly, and so is the workforce driving it. This makes retaining top talent critical to ensuring continuity, quality of service, and avoiding the costs and disruption of frequent recruitment.

According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, over 47 million Americans left their jobs in 2021 alone, with millions continuing to do so each month. For businesses , this turnover presents both a challenge and an opportunity to understand what employees truly value and how to build a workplace they won’t want to leave.

Here are five steps to guide you in creating a workplace where professionals feel supported, motivated, and committed to growing with your firm.

1. Hire for Culture and Potential

The stakes are high in legal recruitment, and hiring the wrong person can have a ripple effect on morale, productivity, and client relationships. So, let’s slow down and hire right.

Instead of focusing solely on technical skills and qualifications, look beyond the resume for candidates whose values align with your firm’s culture and long-term goals. Diversity of thought and perspective is an asset in all business and adaptability is increasingly important. The first step is to revisit your hiring process to ensure you’re asking the right questions and seeking individuals who can not only excel in the role today but also grow with your firm in the future.

2. Invest in Their Professional Journey

Your people are your greatest assets, and just like your clients, they require attention and investment. You’ve spent time hiring right, now, it is time to invest in your choices, ensuring that they are set up to succeed from day one.

Make their onboarding experience seamless and engaging but also show them the culture and career path you promised during recruitment. Then, continue this thinking beyond the onboarding and provide opportunities for professional development through training, mentoring, and clear advancement pathways.

In the competitive legal sector, demonstrating a proactive commitment to employee growth and well-being is key to retaining top talent, ensuring your team feels valued and supported in reaching their full potential.

3. Foster Engagement Through Purpose

We all know that engaged employees are productive employees, but often it is forgotten that engagement starts with clarity. Do your team members understand how their daily work contributes to the firm’s overall success?

Lawyers are often driven by purpose—whether it’s delivering justice, protecting client interests, or achieving innovative outcomes. So, make it a priority to connect their individual roles to the bigger picture and, in doing so, celebrate their contributions, involve them in decision-making, and foster an environment of trust and open communication.

By aligning their goals with the firm’s mission, you create a workplace where everyone feels invested in the outcomes.

4. Lead with Empathy and Kindness

The legal world is often synonymous with high pressure and long hours, but that doesn’t mean kindness should take a backseat. Empathy and understanding go a long way in fostering loyalty and trust. It is important, therefore, to recognize achievements, whether big or small, and make time to connect with your team on a human level. From writing a personal thank-you note for a job well done to ensuring flexible working arrangements during challenging times, it’s often the little things that make the biggest difference.

Kindness isn’t a sign of weakness—it’s a powerful tool for building a resilient and loyal team.

5. Make Retention a Continuous Process

Retention isn’t a one-time initiative—it’s an ongoing commitment. Law is a people-centered business so embed employee well-being, recognition, and development into the core of your firm’s culture.

Create an environment where your people feel genuinely appreciated, understood, and aligned with the firm’s vision. By doing this, you’ll cultivate a culture of loyalty and stability, where your team thrives—and your clients benefit as a result.

Why Employees Stay

In a profession where your people are your greatest asset, putting them first is essential. A happy, engaged team isn’t just good for employee retention; it directly impacts client satisfaction and the firm’s reputation.

By investing in your employees, fostering connection, and leading with empathy, you can ensure your firm remains competitive, resilient, and ready to face the future with the best team by your side.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Richard Culberson

Richard Culberson

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Home Office-Funded Class Action Against Motorola Gets Green Light

By John Freund |

In a significant development for UK collective actions, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has granted a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) in the landmark case Spottiswoode v Airwave Solutions & Motorola. The case—brought by Clare Spottiswoode CBE—accuses Motorola of abusing its dominant position in the UK's emergency services network by charging excessive prices through its Airwave network, which the Home Office claims resulted in £1.1 billion in overcharges to UK taxpayers.

According to iclg, the class action is being funded by the UK Home Office itself, which is also the complainant in an associated CMA enforcement action. In its judgment, the CAT concluded that Spottiswoode is an appropriate class representative, and that the claim—which covers a proposed class of over 100,000 public service bodies—is suitable for collective proceedings. The case will proceed on an opt-out basis for UK entities, with opt-in available for overseas claimants.

The Tribunal emphasized that funding by a government department does not compromise the independence of the class representative, and that the Home Office’s funding arrangement complies with legal and procedural requirements. Notably, the judgment paves the way for governmental entities to play a dual role—as both complainant and funder—in future competition-based collective actions.

This case raises fascinating implications for the legal funding industry. It challenges traditional notions of third-party funders and opens the door to more creative and strategic funding models initiated by government entities themselves, particularly in cases with broad public interest and regulatory overlap.

Commercial Deals

Investors Eye Equity Stakes in Law Firms via Arizona ABS Model

By John Freund |

A notable shift is underway in the legal‑services world as institutional investors increasingly direct capital toward law‑firm ownership—particularly via the alternative business structure (ABS) model in Arizona.

According to a recent article in Bloomberg, large asset managers and venture‑capital firms are positioning themselves to participate in legal‑services revenues in a way that diverges from traditional contingent‑fee funding of lawsuits. The piece identifies heavy hitters such as Benefit Street Partners and Crossbeam Venture Partners as recent entrants into the ABS‑enabled law‑firm ownership space. Benefit Street’s application for a new Arizona law‑firm entity lists tort litigation, IP claims and bankruptcy matters as focal areas.

The ABS pathway in Arizona has grown rapidly. In 2021, the state approved 15 ABS licences; by 2024, that number rose to 51, bringing the overall total to approximately 153. The regulatory flexibility in Arizona contrasts with the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, where non‑lawyer ownership of law firms remains prohibited or severely constrained. Meanwhile, states such as California have reacted by imposing restrictions—e.g., California's recent ban on contingency‑fee sharing with out‑of‑state ABS models.

For the legal‑funding and law‑firm investment ecosystem, this development carries multiple implications. First, it signals that investors view law‑firm ownership as a viable risk‑adjusted investment category beyond pure litigation funding. Second, it raises governance and regulatory questions around outside ownership of law firms, especially as the lines blur between funders, back‑office providers and equity owners. Finally, firms, funders and law‑firm owners may need to reassess their strategies and compliance frameworks in light of the shifting landscape of capital entry and structural innovation.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

California Bars Contingency Fee‑Sharing with Alternative Legal Business Structures

By John Freund |

A new California law—Assembly Bill 931, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom—prohibits California‐licensed attorneys and law firms from entering into contingent‐fee sharing arrangements with out‑of‑state “alternative business structures” (ABS) or law firms owned, in whole or in part, by non‑lawyers.

According to Reuters, the law targets a key business model of mass‑tort and personal‑injury practices, where fee revenue is shared with non‑lawyer entities or firms located in jurisdictions that permit non‑lawyer ownership or alternative legal structures (such as Arizona, Utah, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia). The law was narrowed during legislative debate to apply specifically to contingent fees rather than flat‑fee or fixed‑fee arrangements.

Under the statute, contracts beginning on or after January 1, 2026, that violate the prohibition will expose the California lawyer or law firm to minimum fines of $10,000 per infraction. The legislation expressly allows fixed‑fee sharing for specific dollar amounts and non‑lawyer involvement in back‑office or support services, but draws the line at traditional contingency‑fee tying arrangements with ABS entities.

For the litigation finance industry, this legislative shift signals a tightening of rules around fee‑sharing and ownership arrangements, particularly for cross‑jurisdictional structures that rely on non‑lawyer capital. The change may hamper integration between California‑based counsel and out‑of‑state firms that depend on contingency‐driven revenue sharing.