Trending Now
Commercial Funder's Corner

Raising the Bar for Client Services in the Legal Industry

By Richard Culberson |

The following was contributed by Richard Culberson, the CEO North America of Moneypenny, the world’s customer conversation experts, specializing in call answering and live chat solutions.

Delivering exceptional client service in the legal industry isn’t about grand gestures or over-the-top perks. Instead, it’s about providing seamless, efficient, and consistent experience—ensuring clients feel supported, informed, and confident in your expertise.

Legal professionals instinctively prioritize client satisfaction, knowing that trust and reputation are everything in the industry. However, keeping clients happy doesn’t require excessive handholding or elaborate corporate hospitality. True exceptional service comes from delivering reliable, solutions-focused support that alleviates stress and allows clients to focus on their priorities.

What Does Seamless Client Service Look Like in Law?

The key is demonstrating value by making legal processes smoother, less stressful, and more efficient. Clients don’t just seek legal expertise—they seek peace of mind that comes from knowing their matter is in good hands, that communication will be clear, and that their legal team will proactively anticipate their needs.

For law firms to reach this high level in client service, it means keeping promises, handling matters efficiently, and exceeding expectations where it matters most—through expertise, responsiveness, and a seamless experience.

How to Build Long-Term Client Loyalty

Focusing on client experience is often a thankless task in the short term, as good service is expected, while poor service is called out. However, over time, delivering consistently excellent service will build trust and loyalty because when clients know they can rely on you, they are more likely to return for future matters and refer others to your firm.

However, being dependable doesn’t mean standing still. Instead, by understanding client touchpoints and pain points, legal professionals can provide even greater value—sometimes before clients even realize they need it.

The Role of Personalization in Legal Client Service

Every client is unique, and every client has unique needs, and it goes without saying that tailoring your approach to those needs is a key differentiator in the legal industry. Even if it is the same type of case as the one you have just handled, it is still unique and requires personalized updates, proactive case management, and thoughtful communication. This will only serve to enhance the client experience and demonstrate that your firm values their business.

What’s more, providing this level of service turns satisfied clients into ambassadors for your firm. While appreciation gifts or hospitality, for example, can be a nice touch, they are meaningless without the reliable service behind them. The true measure of outstanding client service is in making complex legal matters as smooth and stress-free as possible.

Seven Pillars of Seamless Legal Client Service

To consistently deliver outstanding client service, legal professionals should focus on these key principles:

  1. Understand Your Client – Know their goals, concerns, and expectations.
  2. Deliver Convenience and Ease of Use – Make processes straightforward and accessible.
  3. Be Proactive – Anticipate client needs before they arise.
  4. Personalize Your Approach – Tailor communication and solutions to each client.
  5. Communicate Clearly and Regularly – Keep clients informed without overwhelming them.
  6. Keep Your Promises – Reliability builds trust and long-term relationships.
  7. Seek and Act on Feedback – Continuously improve based on client insights.

Reframing the goal from going “above and beyond” to making the legal journey as effortless as possible will create a strong foundation for long-term success. And by doing so, law firms can build lasting client loyalty and a reputation for excellence that sets them apart in an increasingly competitive industry.

About the author

Richard Culberson

Richard Culberson

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Calunius Capital’s Perrin Blasts New Attacks on UK Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

Third-party funders are once again in the cross-hairs—and one of the sector’s elder statesmen is firing back. In a forthright essay published today, Calunius Capital chairman Leslie Perrin argues that Britain’s collective redress regime “cannot survive” if fresh assaults on funder fees succeed.

In an article in Solicitors Journal, Perrin points to two flashpoints: the UK Supreme Court’s 2023 PACCAR ruling, which invalidated percentage-based funding agreements, and a new bid in Neill v Sony to outlaw multiples-based returns as well. At the same time, the Competition Appeal Tribunal is facing a judicial-review challenge from funder Innsworth over its decision to slash the funder’s recovery in the landmark £200 million Merricks v Mastercard settlement—an intervention Perrin calls “dangerously simplistic.”

Perrin’s broader thesis is that without well-capitalised funders prepared to shoulder adverse-costs risk, consumers will be left “stranded” against well-resourced corporate defendants and the CAT’s promise of affordable group litigation will wither. Perrin also takes aim at lobbying by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which he says seeks to “promote opposition to litigation funding” under the guise of economic prudence. In place of curbs, he backs the Civil Justice Council’s recommendation for legislation reversing PACCAR retrospectively and prospectively.

If Westminster heeds those warnings, UK funders could regain certainty and renew their commitment to competition-class actions. But if further fee-caps or invalidations emerge, capital will flee to jurisdictions with clearer rules—leaving an access-to-justice gap just as collective-action appetite is peaking. Whether Innsworth’s challenge succeeds may therefore set the tone for the next chapter of UK litigation finance.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Hausfeld leader rebuts ‘£18bn mass-litigation burden’ claim

By John Freund |

Alarm bells over the economic cost of UK class actions are “simply wrong,” says Anthony Maton, global co-chair of claimant firm Hausfeld, who dismantles a think-tank report suggesting mass litigation could sap £18 billion from the economy.

In The Global Legal Post, Maton traces the deliberate parliamentary design behind the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the CAT’s rigorous gatekeeping of collective proceedings. He argues that funders—often caricatured as “ambulance chasers”—perform an essential market-correction role, underwriting meritorious competition claims that regulators or individual consumers lack resources to pursue. The piece notes that voluntary redress schemes built into the Act “have been used precisely zero times,” reinforcing the need for well-financed private enforcement.

Maton also rebuts suggestions that funders extract disproportionate value, pointing to oversight mechanisms and adverse-costs exposure that align investor and claimant interests. He invites sceptics to consider whether ill-gotten profits are better left with infringing corporates or redistributed to harmed consumers and access-to-justice charities.

The commentary offers a timely counter-narrative as Westminster considers PACCAR-related reforms. By reframing funders as pillars of a competitive economy rather than rent-seekers, it may bolster lobbying for statutory clarity on LFAs and head off calls for US-style disclosure mandates. Expect industry groups to amplify this message—and for critics to sharpen economic-impact modeling—in the run-up to any government consultation.

Case Developments Commercial

Paris Court Sets December Date for Ruling on Sulu Funded Award Annulment

By John Freund |

A critical procedural milestone has been set in the high-profile dispute over the $15 billion arbitral award claimed by the heirs of the defunct Sulu sultanate against Malaysia. A Paris court has scheduled a hearing for December 9, where it will decide whether to annul the partial award issued by a Spanish arbitrator—a decision with potentially far-reaching implications for the legitimacy of third-party funded arbitration in sovereign disputes.

As reported by The Malaysian Reserve, the case stems from a 2022 ruling which found Malaysia liable for ceasing annual payments related to a 19th-century lease of territory now part of Sabah. The award has been described as one of the largest in arbitration history and is backed by Therium, a UK-based litigation funder. Malaysia has consistently challenged the legitimacy of the proceedings, resulting in conflicting decisions in courts across Spain, France, and Luxembourg.

The upcoming Paris ruling will not address the full $15 billion award but rather the validity of the partial award that formed the foundation for the final judgment. Malaysia’s legal representatives argue that the arbitration itself is void, citing breaches in due process and the arbitrator's alleged overreach.

The Sulu case has become a lightning rod in debates over state immunity, the enforceability of investor-state arbitration, and the role of third-party funders in politically sensitive disputes. As funders continue to back complex claims against sovereign states, the Paris court’s decision may set a significant precedent for the enforceability—and reversibility—of arbitral awards financed by external capital.