Trending Now
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
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Calls Grow for Litigation Funding Disclosure Rules

As third-party litigation finance scales across commercial disputes, courts and policymakers are weighing whether—and how—to require disclosure of funding arrangements.

An article in Bloomberg Law News states that proponents argue that targeted transparency can illuminate potential conflicts, clarify control over litigation decisions, and help judges manage complex dockets without chilling meritorious claims. Opponents warn that blanket disclosure risks revealing strategy, upending privilege, and inviting harassment of funded plaintiffs. The debate, once theoretical, is increasingly practical as capital providers back high-stakes cases, class actions, and MDLs, and as a patchwork of local rules and standing orders nudges the industry toward more consistent practices.

Litigation funding’s growing influence on case dynamics warrants a disclosure rule, emphasizing that transparency can bolster fairness and the integrity of proceedings. The piece notes recurring flashpoints: who controls settlement decisions, whether funders exert improper influence, how agreements intersect with privilege and work product, and what conflicts might arise for counsel or class representatives. It outlines possible frameworks, from limited, court-facing disclosures at filing to in camera review of funding agreements and sworn certifications about control, veto rights, and fee waterfalls. According to the article, calibrated disclosure—rather than broad, party-to-party exposure—could give judges essential visibility while minimizing competitive harm and discouraging fishing expeditions.

If proposals coalesce around narrow, court-directed disclosures, more districts could codify consistent requirements, reducing uncertainty for funders and litigants. Fund managers may respond by standardizing governance, conflict checks, and documentation to support certifications on control and settlement authority.

For complex litigation—especially MDLs and class actions—measured transparency could improve case management and reduce satellite disputes, while preserving confidentiality that enables financing to continue filling access-to-justice gaps.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Irish Minister ‘Very Hesitant’ On Third‑Party Funding

By John Freund |

The Minister for Justice in Ireland has expressed serious reservations about introducing third‑party litigation funding. Speaking at a dispute resolution conference hosted by Mason Hayes & Curran, Jim O’Callaghan emphasized his concern about “commodifying justice” and his reluctance to see lawyers as the principal beneficiaries of funding regimes. He pledged to review the forthcoming report from the Law Reform Commission (LRC) before making any decisions.

An article in Law Society Gazette reports that under current Irish law, third-party litigation funding by parties without a legitimate interest in the dispute is prohibited, though exceptions exist. O’Callaghan acknowledged the potential access‑to‑justice benefits of such funding, but warned that in practice the “big winners” tend to be lawyers. He stated, “I have no interest, in my role as Minister for Justice, in enriching lawyers.”

During the same panel, barrister Emily Egan McGrath SC noted that Irish courts have expressed growing frustration at the absence of legislative reform and have sometimes stretched existing exceptions—for example, in Campbell v O'Doherty, where the High Court rejected a challenge linked to crowdfunding. The panel also discussed evolving developments under EU law—such as the Representative Actions Directive—which may force Ireland’s hand. But speakers cautioned that the high costs of mass actions might discourage parties without funding support.

MHC partner Colin Monaghan observed heightened wariness in the UK about unregulated litigation funders, while Rory Kirrane SC warned of internal conflicts between funders and claimants over litigation proceeds. The panel speculated that any regulatory framework should fall under existing bodies (such as the Central Bank or CCPC) instead of creating a new oversight agency. Former Chief Justice Frank Clarke, president of the LRC, endorsed reform as essential—but insisted it must be accompanied by rigorous regulation.

O’Callaghan’s expressed reluctance signals that any move toward regulated third‑party funding in Ireland will face political and institutional resistance. For the legal funding industry, this cautious posture underscores the importance of demonstrating safeguards, transparency, and proportionality if funding models are to gain traction in conservative jurisdictions.

Commercial

Funder Bets Big on Kalshi Lawsuit

By John Freund |

A litigation funder is driving lawsuits against prediction market platform Kalshi Inc. in six states, using an 18th‑century gambling law in a bid to claw back losses from predictions gone wrong.

An article in Bloomberg Law describes how Veridis Management LLC and its CEO, Maximillian Amster, are behind entities filing suits in Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, South Carolina, Massachusetts and Georgia. The lawsuits invoke state versions of the anti‑illegal gambling “Statute of Anne,” which allows losing parties to sue winners for losses plus fees.

The targeted suits allege that Kalshi—which operates as a platform for trading event contracts—is facilitating illegal, unregulated wagering and violating both state and federal law. The complaint includes examples such as bets on NBA championship scores and whether Gavin Newsom becomes the Democratic nominee in 2028.

The plaintiffs also name Robinhood and Webull, platforms that host Kalshi’s contracts, as defendants. While Kalshi declined to comment, the article notes that Kalshi’s status as a designated contract market under the CFTC is central to the legal conflict: that designation shields it from state gambling regulation, but its boundaries are under scrutiny. A U.S. court has already weighed in, ruling that prediction of a political election does not qualify as “gaming” under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Veridis is portrayed as a specialist in complex litigation and regulatory claims, investing in high‑stakes, nonrecourse cases. Amster, formerly in real estate and private equity, steers this strategic litigation play. The article frames the Kalshi suits as a bold frontier for litigation funders—leveraging obscure statutes to attack financial innovation.

These developments may push litigation funders further into regulatory and doctrinal controversy. How courts and regulators respond to this stretch of archaic statutes could reshape strategic boundaries in the litigation finance industry.