Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Guy Nielson and Stuart Hills of RiverFleet
Commercial Funder's Corner

Unleashing the Potential of Outsourcing

By Richard Culberson |

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

Every leader knows the importance of maximizing the potential of their people, clients, and business. It’s about recognizing the value of your resources and optimizing their efficiency. This can be achieved by streamlining, leveraging technology, and investing in people, however, one solution that is gaining momentum in the legal world is outsourcing.  

Traditionally, businesses used outsourcing to save money by obtaining help with non-essential administrative tasks, thereby avoiding the costs of hiring and training employees and purchasing equipment and it’s been proven to be an effective way to control expenses. 

However, today, Outsourcing 2.0 is more than just a cost-saving measure. It is about collaborating to grow, thrive and maximize value.  

Take the humble phone call as an example. Whether it is a new inquiry or an existing client, every call is important and ensuring that they are answered, and opportunities are never missed is particularly crucial for law firms, whatever their size. On average one in 10 calls to a law firm is from someone making a new inquiry. If they go unanswered that is business lost, or worse, it is business that goes to the competition.  

Outsourcing your calls could help you never miss a call, avoid interruptions, and support business continuity. For example, it can allow your firm to operate seamlessly, whether it is a busy day in court, meetings, an office move, or a holiday. Furthermore, it should be able to work as a faultless extension of your business, so that no one knows you have a partner to answer your calls, for example.  

The same goes for other functions. Marketing and IT tasks can take away time that attorneys could be spending on billable hours. Just like you would hire an expert in a field that is out of your legal realm, outsourcing can support law firms to save valuable time, manage overflow, reduce costs, improve the litigation process, and allow employees to focus on key tasks. 

As a business leader, you understand your business’s strengths and areas where it needs support better than anyone else, so it is logical to look at ways you can focus on these strengths and seek assistance for other aspects.  Especially when you consider the tangible benefits that outsourcing can deliver to businesses, all while making financial sense. The key is finding the right partner. 

So, how can you ensure that outsourcing works for your business? 

Outsourcing will only work in the long term if both parties approach it as a partnership. It’s all about collaboration. With commitment and effective communication from both sides, long-term success can be achieved, however, it does require investment of time to get it right; treating it as a one-time deal will limit its potential. 

So, it’s all about finding your perfect partner, one that aligns well with your business, not only in terms of skills and experience, but also in terms of culture and values. This requires thorough research and careful evaluation. 

There is no doubt that outsourcing can help you to unleash your law firm’s potential by allowing you to focus on your core competencies while delegating other activities to external experts. This can lead to increased efficiency, cost savings, and access to specialized skills and resources that may not be available in-house freeing up time and resources to drive growth and also provide the flexibility to scale operations up or down based on business needs, making it a powerful tool for unlocking and maximizing a company’s potential. 

But you must approach it with the right attitude if you want to unleash the potential of your people and your business. Getting the right partnership and outsourcing can serve as a strategic tool to help law firms reach new heights of success in 2025 and beyond. 

Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America, a global leader in outsourced call answering, live chat, receptionist teams and customer service solutions for business large and small, handling over 20 million calls and chats for thousands of organizations. Moneypenny has an award-winning culture, with over 1,250 people across the US and UK. At the centre of this culture is a vision that if you combine awesome people with leading-edge technology, you will supercharge your people and your business, delivering gold standard customer experience and service. Richard is passionate about building teams that leverage new business models and technologies, driving growth and scaling business.

About the author

Richard Culberson

Richard Culberson

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.