Trending Now
Commercial Funder's Corner Legal Innovation

Behind the Scenes: How AI is Quietly Transforming the Legal Client Experience

July 2, 2025

Behind the Scenes: How AI is Quietly Transforming the Legal Client Experience

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.

When people think about the legal client experience, they often picture what happens in the courtroom or during a critical client meeting. But increasingly, the most meaningful changes to how law firms, legal service providers and legal funders support their clients are happening out of sight, thanks to the power of artificial intelligence (AI). Whether it’s client intake, communication routing, or managing complex caseloads and funding relationships, AI is reshaping the way legal teams deliver service behind the scenes.

Across America, firms in all industries are turning to AI to enhance their people. The goal is simple: deliver faster, more personalized, and more efficient service. And when done right, the difference is both quiet and powerful.

At Moneypenny, we work with thousands of legal professionals every day, from solo attorneys to large firms and legal funders, helping them manage customer conversations and deliver great client service. We’ve seen firsthand how AI, when applied with care and purpose, can reshape the client experience from the inside out.

Easy Access to the Right Information

In any busy legal setting, timing is everything. Whether it’s a client call, intake conversation, or case status update, having instant access to accurate information is key. That’s where AI comes in. It can surface the right details in real time so teams can respond quickly and confidently.

Take legal funders, for example, they often need to assess case viability quickly, AI tools can instantly surface key case milestones, funding eligibility criteria, and prior correspondence to accelerate decision-making and reduce friction.

Smarter Call and Message Routing

Any business fields a wide range of calls and messages in a day, and not every inquiry belongs on the same desk. AI can now analyze keywords, tone, and context to route communication to the right person, and it does it automatically.

That means clients reach the right person faster, and your team spends less time untangling misdirected messages. In an industry where responsiveness matters, this kind of behind-the-scenes efficiency is a real win.

Getting Ahead of Client Needs

What’s more, AI doesn’t just react, it can anticipate too. By looking at past interactions and analyzing the data, it can identify patterns and flag issues before they arise.

Let’s say a client regularly asks about timelines or paperwork. AI can flag repetitive requests for status updates from claimant attorneys or co-counsel, prompting automated reporting or scheduled updates to improve transparency and communication between parties. This level of attentiveness not only reduces frustration but also builds trust and reassures clients, something especially valuable in the high-pressure, high-emotion legal industry.

Seamless Experience Across Channels

Today’s clients want to communicate on their own terms, whether that’s by phone, email, live chat, or text. And they expect consistency, no matter the channel. AI can help to make that happen.

By bringing together data from multiple sources, AI ensures that whoever answers the phone or replies to a message (whether that is call one or message five) has the full context. The result is that clients feel heard and known, not like they’re starting over every time, and it is that kind of continuity that can turn a routine exchange into a relationship.

Real-Time Support for Your Team

Think of AI as a digital assistant, offering prompts, surfacing information, and making sure the person handling the call or message has exactly what they need. It is helping people deliver their best work.

At Moneypenny, our AI tools support our legal receptionists during conversations, pulling up relevant details, suggesting next steps, and helping maintain a personalized touch even during peak periods. It’s about helping good people be even better at what they do.

Scaling the Personal Touch

There’s a common misconception that AI makes things feel impersonal or robotic. But when it’s used well, it actually allows businesses to be more personal, and at scale. Imagine being able to greet every client by name, remember their preferences, and respond in a way that feels tailored, even when your team is managing thousands of interactions. That’s what we aim to deliver every day. And AI makes it possible.

For legal funders juggling a portfolio of diverse cases and law firm partners, AI can ensure consistency in tone, terminology, and updates so that funders can maintain an attentive, personalized service level without scaling up staff headcount.

The Big Picture: Human + AI = A Better Experience

Whether you’re running a law firm, operating a litigation finance business, or managing client services across the legal ecosystem, one thing is clear: clients want service that’s fast, accurate, relevant and personal. AI helps make that happen, by enhancing the human touch.

The real transformation isn’t just happening in space that the client sees but in the systems behind the scenes that power that experience. For leaders across legal industry and beyond, the takeaway is this: the future of service isn’t just about upgrading the visible. It’s about building smarter, more supportive systems that let your people do what they do best.

That’s where AI delivers its real value and where the real competitive edge lies. 

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Dutch Funder FairPlay Legal Halts Financing of Gambling-Loss Claims After Supreme Court Ruling

FairPlay Legal has stopped funding Dutch gambling-loss claims and is terminating its existing files after the Hoge Raad, the Netherlands' Supreme Court, ruled that the absence of a Dutch licence does not by itself render an online operator's contracts void.

As reported by Casino Zorgplicht, the Court held in its 3 July 2026 judgment that the Wet op de kansspelen, the Dutch gaming act, never had the effect of invalidating contracts with operators acting contrary to article 1(1)(a). That conclusion removes the central legal theory underpinning thousands of claims seeking recovery of losses incurred with unlicensed offshore operators. The ruling followed preliminary questions referred in June 2024 by the district courts of Amsterdam and North Holland, and was consistent with the advisory opinion delivered by Advocate General Lindenbergh in November 2025.

FairPlay Legal withdrew financing immediately, telling the publication that the claims no longer offer "legal and commercial perspective." The funder, which worked exclusively with advocaat Pepijn Le Heux on the portfolio, said it will continue to pursue a separate category of cases in which operators refuse to pay out winnings. It has no connection to Fair Play Casino.

The decision illustrates how quickly a consumer-claims portfolio built on a single statutory argument can be wound down once an apex court closes the theory. Dutch gambling-loss claims had attracted significant funded volume over the past three years, and the ruling effectively strands files that had not yet reached judgment or settlement.

Commercial

Linklaters Urges Standalone Cost-Benefit Test for UK Antitrust Class Actions

Linklaters has called for a new standalone hurdle at the certification stage of UK antitrust collective proceedings, arguing that claims should advance only where their expected financial benefits substantially outweigh the costs of bringing them.

As reported by PYMNTS, citing Law.com International, the firm submitted the proposal to the Department for Business and Trade's consultation on "Swifter and simpler competition redress, regulatory appeals and competition enforcement," published in July with responses due 25 September. Linklaters argued that the Competition Appeal Tribunal should apply heightened scrutiny to novel or unestablished theories of harm, and framed its concerns around litigation costs, third-party funding structures and the proportion of any award that ultimately reaches class members.

The submission enters a debate that has intensified since the Supreme Court's decision in Merricks, widely read as lowering the certification threshold and opening the door to a substantial pipeline of opt-out claims. Critics of the regime point to outcomes such as Waterside v Mowi, where the distribution of recoveries between class members, their lawyers and their funders drew judicial attention.

The proposal sits in direct tension with submissions from the claimant and funding side, including the International Legal Finance Association's call for the government to clarify rather than rebuild the opt-out regime. With the consultation window now closed, attention shifts to whether the Department for Business and Trade treats funder economics as a certification question or leaves it to the Tribunal's existing discretion.

Commercial

Pogust Goodhead to Change Its Name as Both Namesake Founders Demand Removal

Pogust Goodhead will abandon the name it has traded under since 2021 after both of its namesake founders publicly demanded their names be stripped from the firm, deepening a governance crisis at one of the most heavily funded claimant firms in the UK market.

As reported by Legal Futures, Harris Pogust announced via LinkedIn that he had issued a cease-and-desist demanding the firm stop using his name, saying he was "embarrassed to have my name anywhere on that document" in reference to proceedings the firm has brought against its own client committee. "You are suing someone you are asking the court to allow you to continue to represent?" he wrote. Co-founder Tom Goodhead followed with a similar demand days later.

A firm spokeswoman confirmed the change: "We intend to move away from the Pogust Goodhead name. The firm has moved on from its former leadership and its name should too." The rebrand will be the practice's fourth identity since 2018, following SPG Law and PGMBM.

The dispute centres on the £36 billion Mariana Dam claim against BHP, brought on behalf of more than 400,000 Brazilian claimants. Pogust Goodhead has filed a claim against its own client committee after the committee moved to replace it with Bailey Glasser International. An expedited hearing is expected.

For funders, the episode is a reminder that concentration risk in mass-claims portfolios extends beyond case merits to the stability of the firm running the book.