Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is a Lifeline for Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck
Commercial Funder's Corner Special Features

How to Build — and Sustain — a Powerhouse Legal Team

May 15, 2025

How to Build — and Sustain — a Powerhouse Legal Team

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.

Teams have the power to deliver sharper results, better service, and greater resilience. But how can we turn collaboration into a powerhouse — and keep it going?

As someone who leads a fast-paced customer conversations business, I know firsthand how critical strong teamwork is to delivering excellence, building trust, and staying competitive. While I don’t lead a law firm, I work closely with legal professionals across North America every day — and I’ve seen that the principles behind high-performing teams apply just as much in the legal sector as they do in tech.

At Moneypenny, we support thousands of law firms by providing virtual receptionists, client communication tools, and 24/7 support — so we understand the pressures legal teams face: high stakes, fast turnarounds, and a growing expectation for more responsive, more efficient service.

So, here’s the big question: how do you transform teamwork from something that gets things done to something that drives sustained excellence? 

Defining a Powerhouse Legal Team

We’ve all heard the phrase, “teamwork makes the dream work.” But in reality, that only holds true when the team is built and supported in the right way.  What really makes the difference is a powerhouse team – one that doesn’t just meet expectations but shapes them.

A legal team, like any tech or ops team is made up of specialists – attorneys, paralegals, and support staff. It’s a collaborative unit aligned toward shared client outcomes — whether that’s winning a case, closing a deal, or shaping legal strategy. A powerhouse legal team, however, takes this a step further. It consistently delivers excellence, anticipates client needs, and influences firm-wide success.

This could be the litigation team that wins precedent-setting cases. The M&A group that closes complex deals under pressure. Or the in-house counsel team that protects and propels business strategy. Whatever the mission, a powerhouse team lead sthrough several key building blocks, and in my experience, they’re universal to all industries.

The Seven Pillars of a Powerhouse Team (Legal or Otherwise)

So, how do you build that level of excellence? It starts with people — the right people. In legal services, your people are your greatest asset. But it’s not just about legal acumen. They must align with your firm’s culture, values, and long-term vision.

Then, you build on these seven pillars:

1. Strong Legal Leadership

Every successful team needs a leader who can inspire and set a strategic course. Whether it’s a senior partner, practice head, or general counsel, their job is to elevate the team’s performance, foster a culture of accountability, and ensure alignment with both client goals and firm direction. Great leaders don’t micromanage — they empower.

2. Shared Goals and Legal Vision

Powerhouse teams are unified by clear, shared goals. Everyone knows what success looks like and what’s expected of them — whether that’s billable hours, client feedback, or innovation in legal service delivery. When the entire team rallies around a common vision, alignment and momentum follow.

3. Diverse and Complementary Legal Expertise

No team succeeds when everyone brings the same strengths. The best-performing teams I’ve built include a mix of strategists, problem-solvers, doers and deep thinkers. The same principle applies in legal settings. Legal excellence requires more than technical brilliance in one area. It demands a combination of skills across disciplines. A litigation team thrives when trial lawyers, legal researchers, and case managers work seamlessly. In a corporate team, dealmakers, compliance professionals, and contract experts must collaborate. And just as important as functional skills is diversity of thought — bringing varied perspectives to legal problems leads to smarter, more creative outcomes.

4. Open and Effective Communication

In our world, communication is everything but that is true in all busines. Whether it’s delegating work, discussing a case strategy, or updating clients, effective communication prevents errors, builds trust, and enhances efficiency. I’ve found that when communication flows freely everything else works better. Egos stay in check, ideas get better and results speak for themselves.

5. Trust and Collaboration

A true team operates with mutual trust. Everyone understands their role, respects others’ and works to a shared goal. When legal professionals trust one another’s judgment, competence, and intentions, the team thrives. This trust allows lawyers to focus on their areas of expertise while relying on others to do the same. Collaboration becomes second nature, not forced. Roles are respected, workloads are balanced, and credit is shared. That kind of trust turns a good team into a powerhouse.

6. Adaptability and Resilience

Across the business landscape, we’re in a time when things change fast and the legal world is no different — new legislation, client demands, economic pressures. A powerhouse team responds with agility. They learn quickly, adjust strategies, and support each other during challenging cases or high-pressure deadlines. They don’t just survive stress — they strengthen through it.

7. Continuous Learning and Improvement

The best teams never stay still. Whether it’s staying ahead of regulatory changes, mastering new tech tools, or refining client service skills, powerhouse teams prioritize development. Mentoring, ongoing training, and regular performance feedback cultivate teams that evolve — not stagnate.

A commitment to continuous improvement sends a clear message: you believe in your team, and you’re investing in their growth. That, in turn, builds loyalty, engagement, and retention.

Final Thoughts

Whether you’re building a tech team, a client success function, or a legal department, the fundamentals of a high-performing team remain the same. Great teams don’t just happen. They’re built with intent — with the right people, supported by the right culture, and driven by the right leadership.

When you get this right, the payoff is exponential. From more efficient operations to higher client satisfaction and better outcomes — powerhouse teamwork becomes a competitive advantage.

In any sector — and certainly in law — that’s a result worth striving for.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Secures Landmark Win Against BHP in Brazil Dam Case

By John Freund |

In a major breakthrough for cross-border group litigation, Pogust Goodhead has secured a resounding victory in its long-running claim against mining giant BHP over the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Mariana, Brazil. The UK High Court has ruled BHP liable for the disaster, which killed 19 people and unleashed a wave of toxic sludge through the Rio Doce basin, displacing entire communities and leaving lasting environmental damage.

According to Non-Billable, the ruling confirms BHP’s liability under both Brazilian environmental law and the Brazilian Civil Code. In rejecting the company’s jurisdictional and limitation defenses, the court made clear that English law recognizes the right of over 600,000 Brazilian claimants to pursue redress in UK courts. The judgment underscores BHP’s operational and strategic control over the Samarco joint venture and found that the company was aware of critical dam defects more than a year before the collapse. The attempt to distance itself through the argument of being an indirect polluter was also dismissed.

This outcome is a critical milestone in one of the largest group actions ever brought in the UK. A trial on damages is now scheduled for October 2026, with case management proceedings set to resume in December.

The win comes amid internal turbulence at Pogust Goodhead, including recent leadership changes and reported tensions with its litigation finance backers, but the firm remains on course to press forward with what could be a multibillion-dollar compensation phase.

Commercial

Incentive Payments Not Essential for Named Plaintiffs, Study Finds

By John Freund |

A new empirical study by Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School challenges a widely held assumption in class action litigation: that incentive payments are necessary to recruit named plaintiffs. The research, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, analyzed federal class-action filings from January 2017 through May 2024, using data drawn from the legal-tech platform Lex Machina. It leveraged a natural experiment created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s 2020 ruling that barred incentive payments in the 11th Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama) while other circuits continued permitting them.

An article in Reuters states that according to the analysis, the volume of class-actions filed in the 11th Circuit did not meaningfully decline relative to other circuits after the ban on incentive payments. In other words, the absence of such payments did not appear to impair the ability of plaintiffs’ counsel to find willing named plaintiffs.

Fitzpatrick and his co-author, graduate student Colton Cronin, observed that although courts routinely approve modest incentive awards (averaging about $7,500 in non-securities class actions) to compensate the named plaintiff’s extra effort post-settlement, the data suggest that payments may not be a driving factor in recruitment.

Fitzpatrick emphasizes that this is not to say incentive payments have no role. He notes that there remains a moral argument for compensating named plaintiffs who shoulder additional burdens. These include depositions, discovery responses, trial participation, and public exposure. Yet the study’s finding is notable. Motivation for class-representation may be rooted more in altruism, reputation or justice-seeking than in straightforward financial gain.

For the legal-funding industry and class-action litigators, the findings are significant. They suggest that reliance on incentive payments to secure named plaintiffs may be less critical than previously assumed, potentially lowering a transactional cost input in structuring class settlements. On the other hand, third-party funders and litigation financiers should consider how the supply of willing named plaintiffs might remain stable even in jurisdictions restricting such payments.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Merricks Calls for Ban on Secret Arbitrations in Funded Claims

By John Freund |

Walter Merricks, the class representative behind the landmark Mastercard case, has publicly criticized the use of confidential arbitration clauses in litigation funding agreements tied to collective proceedings.

According to Legal Futures, Merricks spoke at an event where he argued that such clauses can leave class representatives exposed and unsupported, particularly when disputes arise with funders. He emphasized that disagreements between funders and class representatives should be heard in open proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), not behind closed doors.

His comments come in the wake of the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard claim—significantly lower than the original £14 billion figure cited in early filings. During the settlement process, Merricks became the target of an arbitration initiated by his funder, Innsworth Capital. The arbitration named him personally, prompting Mastercard to offer an indemnity of up to £10 million to shield him from personal financial risk.

Merricks warned that the confidentiality of arbitration allows funders to exert undue pressure on class representatives, who often lack institutional backing or leverage. He called on the CAT to scrutinize and reject funding agreements that designate arbitration as the sole forum for dispute resolution. In his view, transparency and public accountability are vital in collective actions, especially when funders and claimants diverge on strategy or settlement terms.

His remarks highlight a growing debate in the legal funding industry over the proper governance of funder-representative relationships. If regulators move to curtail arbitration clauses, it could force funders to navigate public scrutiny and recalibrate their contractual protections in UK group litigation.