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

UK’s Global Rivals Capitalize as PACCAR Funding Reform Stalls

By John Freund |

The United Kingdom's long-promised overhaul of litigation funding regulation has stalled again, and rival jurisdictions are moving to capture the investment that uncertainty is pushing offshore. Nearly three years after the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in *PACCAR* rendered most litigation funding agreements unenforceable by treating them as damages-based agreements, the government has yet to deliver the corrective legislation it pledged.

As reported by The Times, the continued delay is undermining the competitiveness of England and Wales as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration. The Ministry of Justice announced in December 2025 that it intended to clarify that litigation funding agreements are not damages-based agreements, with legislation to follow "when parliamentary time allows." But the 2026 King's Speech omitted any litigation funding bill from the legislative programme, leaving funders and claimants without the statutory certainty they had been promised.

Industry participants have voiced deep disappointment, warning that the absence of reform creates an opening for offshore centers that have already implemented clearer rules on funder involvement. While those jurisdictions compete for capital, the UK continues to develop its framework largely through case law, with little appetite for comprehensive statutory change.

The practical effect, observers note, is that funders weighing where to deploy capital may increasingly look beyond London. For a market that has long marketed itself as the world's premier venue for high-value disputes, the prolonged *PACCAR* limbo carries real economic stakes.

Commercial

New York Ruling Opens Litigation Funding to Discovery in Fraud-Tainted Injury Suits

By John Freund |

A New York appellate ruling, paired with the state's newly enacted consumer litigation funding law, is giving defendants fresh tools to scrutinize the financing behind personal-injury claims they suspect are fraudulent. Together, the developments mark a notable shift toward transparency in a market that has historically operated outside the view of courts and opposing parties.

As reported by Law360, the Appellate Division, First Department, held in *Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Beverages LLC* that defendants may obtain discovery into a plaintiff's third-party litigation funding where they present evidence suggesting the underlying claims arose from systemic fraud. The November 2025 decision was the first time the court affirmed an order compelling a personal-injury plaintiff to produce funding-related discovery, vacating the note of issue to allow further inquiry.

The ruling lands alongside New York's Consumer Litigation Funding Act, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on December 19, 2025, and effective 180 days later. The law caps a funder's recovery at 25% of a case's gross proceeds, requires plain disclosure of all charges and cumulative repayment amounts, and gives consumers a 10-business-day right to cancel without penalty. Attorneys are barred from accepting referral fees or holding financial interests in funding companies.

Notably, the statute stops short of mandating disclosure of funding arrangements during active litigation. For now, defendants seeking to expose questionable financing must rely on rulings like *Lituma* to pry those agreements into the open.

Commercial

Burford Capital Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Third Circuit Arbitration Ruling

By John Freund |

Burford Capital has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Third Circuit decision that dismissed, on jurisdictional grounds, the litigation funder's bid to arbitrate a dispute tied to German antitrust litigation. Burford contends the appeals court committed what it called a "fundamental error" in concluding that federal courts lacked authority over the matter.

As reported by Law360, Burford told the justices on June 16 that the Court's own decision earlier this year in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties is reason enough to undo the Third Circuit's ruling. In Jules, the Court held that a federal court which compels arbitration of federal claims under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act retains subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting award, even without an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the post-award proceeding.

Burford argues that principle squarely governs its case, and that the appeals court's contrary conclusion cannot stand in light of the new precedent. The funder is asking the justices to take up the matter and correct what it describes as a clear jurisdictional misstep.

The stakes extend beyond a single dispute. For funders, the ability to confirm and enforce arbitral awards in federal court is central to monetizing cross-border claims, and a jurisdictional dead-end at the enforcement stage raises both cost and risk. A decision to hear the case could bring welcome clarity for funders pursuing international, arbitration-related recoveries.