Below is our LFJ Conversation with Eric Schurke, CEO, North America at Moneypenny.
Eric Schurke is CEO, North America at Moneypenny, a global leader in customer conversations. He is passionate about the intersection of people, communication and technology, and how businesses can use AI to improve customer experience without losing the human judgment and empathy that build trust. He regularly writes and speaks on customer experience, AI and people-first leadership.
Moneypenny's consumer research found that 38% of people aren't comfortable using AI for any legal communication, rising to 51% among Baby Boomers. For funders and the firms they back, where is the line between what AI should handle at intake and what still needs a person on the phone?
I don't think the answer is to draw a fixed line between AI and people. The key is designing an intake process that understands when one should give way to the other.
AI can be incredibly useful at the beginning of an enquiry. It can answer straightforward questions, gather basic information, establish the reason for contact, capture key details and make sure an enquiry reaches the right place quickly. Those are all areas where speed and consistency can improve the experience.
But legal and funding conversations aren't always straightforward. Someone may be worried, confused or dealing with a difficult situation, and there will be moments when they want reassurance or need to explain something that doesn't fit neatly into a predefined process. That's where a person becomes essential.
Our research is a reminder that businesses can't assume everyone is comfortable with AI. The best systems give people choice and make the transition to a human seamless, with the context already captured so the claimant doesn't have to start again.
For me, the principle is simple: use AI for speed and structure, and people for judgment, reassurance and trust.
You've argued that funders often win or lose an opportunity before case review even begins. What actually happens in those first few minutes of contact that determines whether a claimant stays in the process?
Those first few minutes answer some very basic but important questions for the person making contact: Have I reached the right place? Does this organization understand what I need? Is someone taking me seriously? And what happens next?
Good intake needs to gather enough useful information to move an enquiry forward without making that first interaction feel like an interrogation. That's why I think first contact deserves more attention. It's not simply an administrative stage before the "real" work begins; it's where trust and momentum start to form.
If the experience is slow, confusing or impersonal, a claimant may disengage before the funding team has even had an opportunity to assess the case. Get it right, and the claimant understands the next step while the funder has the context needed to progress the enquiry.
Most intake technology is sold on volume - enquiries handled, calls deflected, hours saved. Why are conversion and client outcomes the better measures, and what does a funder lose by optimizing for the wrong one?
Volume tells you how busy the system is. It doesn't necessarily tell you whether it's working.
You could automate thousands of interactions and reduce handling time considerably, but if good enquiries are dropping out, information is incomplete or people are having to contact you again because nothing was resolved, you've created efficiency on paper rather than value for the business.
I'd ask: Did the enquiry progress? Was the right information captured? Did it reach the right person? Was unnecessary follow-up avoided?
That's the real ROI of a conversation. Passing a message is activity; gathering what's needed for the next stage creates progress. For funders, optimizing purely for volume risks making the top of the funnel look efficient while valuable opportunities are being lost underneath it.
There is a wider lesson here for AI, too. We're seeing businesses invest heavily in technology without always being clear about the outcome they're trying to improve. That's where an AI value gap can emerge; when adoption increases, but the commercial return doesn't necessarily follow.
Consumer legal funding is drawing more state-level regulation in the U.S., much of it centered on disclosure and how claimants are communicated with. How should that shape the way a funder designs an AI-assisted intake process?
It makes clear boundaries and good governance even more important.
I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't tell funders how to interpret individual state requirements, but from a customer communication perspective, AI should make a compliant process easier to follow, not harder to understand.
Funders need to define what an AI system can say and do, what information it can collect and when human involvement is required. If a conversation involves important disclosures, nuanced questions or judgment, there should be a clear escalation path.
Technology can support consistency, but it shouldn’t remove human oversight. In a regulated environment, knowing what your AI shouldn’t do can be every bit as important as knowing what it can. I’d build the guardrails at the beginning rather than adding them after deployment.
Looking out two to three years, what does a well-run intake operation at a litigation funder look like, and which parts of it do you expect will still be human?
I think the best intake operations will feel simpler to the claimant, even though the technology behind them will be more sophisticated.
AI will increasingly handle predictable work: answering routine questions, gathering and structuring information, identifying missing details, scheduling next steps and routing enquiries with the right context. It will also work behind the scenes, reducing administration and helping people find information quickly.
What won't disappear is the human role at the moments that matter most. When somebody has a complicated story, is uncertain about the process, needs reassurance or simply doesn't fit the expected pattern, judgment and empathy will remain essential.
So, I don't see the future as AI-led or human-led. It will be intelligently blended. The best technology will almost disappear into the experience; the claimant will simply feel understood and know they're moving forward.
