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

Malaysia’s New Arbitration Funding Rules Follow Collapse of Therium-Backed Sulu Claim

Two Malaysian jurists have published a retrospective on the Sulu arbitration, drawing a direct line from the failure of the funded US$15 billion claim against Malaysia to the statutory framework the country has since built around third-party funding of arbitration.

As reported by The Edge Malaysia, the piece is written by Tan Sri Zainun Ali, a former Federal Court judge, and barrister J J Chan. They note that the claim brought by parties describing themselves as heirs of the Sultan of Sulu "was reportedly backed by third-party litigation funding, attributed in public reports to Therium Capital Management," on the usual basis that the funder would take a return if the claim succeeded.

It did not. The Paris Court of Appeal annulled the award in full on 9 December 2025, holding that no valid arbitration agreement capable of binding Malaysia existed. The claimants were ordered to pay Malaysia €200,000 in costs, and separately lost costs orders in proceedings before the Netherlands Supreme Court.

The legislative response is the part with the longest reach. Malaysia's Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 took effect on 1 January 2026 and, in the authors' description, "brings third-party funding of arbitration within a clear statutory framework," requiring disclosure of both the funding arrangement and the identity of the funder.

For funders, the sequence is instructive: a single high-profile enforcement campaign against a sovereign produced a disclosure regime that will now apply to every funded arbitration seated in the jurisdiction.

Commercial

New York Poll Finds Nearly 80% of Voters Would End Third-Party Litigation Funding

A statewide survey of likely New York voters has found that close to four in five would do away with third-party litigation funding altogether, placing the practice among the least popular items in a broad tort reform poll.

According to the Empire Center for Public Policy, which commissioned the survey from Cygnal and published the results on 2 September, 79.7% said they support ending the arrangement under which outside investors finance lawsuits in return for a share of any recovery.

Litigation funding did not stand alone. The poll found 94.5% supporting prosecution of staged-accident fraud, 83.4% favouring limits on pain-and-suffering awards, 79.7% backing changes to workplace-injury liability rules, 77% supporting reforms aimed at frivolous lawsuits, and 66.6% in favour of amending the Scaffold Law, New York's absolute-liability statute for elevation-related construction injuries.

The clustering matters as much as the individual figures. Funding is being tested here alongside fraud and damages caps rather than as a discrete question about access to capital, and the framing offered to respondents describes investors financing lawsuits for a portion of the proceeds without reference to claimants who could not otherwise bring a case.

New York enacted consumer legal funding protections earlier this year, and the state has no disclosure statute covering commercial funding. Polling of this kind is likely to be cited in Albany as the next session approaches, and funders should expect the 79.7% figure to travel well beyond the survey it came from.

Commercial

DIFC Court Orders Defendant to Reveal Who Is Funding His Legal Team in $456M TrueUSD Case

A Dubai court has given a defendant in a $456 million stablecoin dispute until 7 September to swear an affidavit identifying who has been paying his lawyers, in an unusually direct judicial demand for the source of a litigant's legal funding.

As reported by CryptoSlate, the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts made the order in *Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC and others*, the proceedings over $456 million transferred out of the reserves backing the TrueUSD token. Matthew William Brittain, one of the respondents, must disclose by 4pm Gulf Standard Time.

The order is specific about what is wanted. Brittain must give the amounts, dates and bank accounts behind fees paid to Quinn Emanuel, Horizons, Gall, Campbells and FTI Consulting, identify the original sources and ultimate beneficial owners of those funds, explain how the accounts were funded and produce supporting documents. It singles out $1,083,912.49 paid by Aria Bio Industries FZE on 31 October 2025.

Compliance is required "to the best of his ability," and the court indicated that further adjournments would need "the most extreme circumstances" backed by strong evidence. Sanctions are not automatic; Techteryx would have to apply. A committal hearing with a four-day estimate is listed for 26 October.

Most disclosure fights concern claimant-side funding. This one runs the other way, and shows a court treating the defence's funding chain as a matter it is entitled to see.