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.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Ethics: What Attorneys Must Weigh Before Saying Yes

By John Freund |

Third party litigation funding has evolved from a niche financing option into a mainstream tool for law firms seeking to manage risk and pursue complex or capital intensive cases. As funding becomes more accessible, attorneys are increasingly evaluating whether outside capital can support growth, extend runway, or enable representation of clients who might otherwise lack resources. However, the expansion of litigation finance has also brought renewed scrutiny to the ethical considerations lawyers must address before entering into funding arrangements.

An article in JD Supra outlines several critical issues attorneys should consider when evaluating third party funding. One of the most significant distinctions is between contingent funding arrangements and traditional non recourse loans. In contingent structures, funders receive a percentage of any recovery, which can raise concerns under long standing prohibitions against fee sharing with non lawyers and doctrines such as champerty. While a handful of jurisdictions have relaxed these rules, most states continue to prohibit arrangements that resemble equity participation in legal fees. Attorneys operating across jurisdictions must be particularly cautious to ensure compliance with applicable professional conduct rules.

Even traditional funding structures can present ethical challenges. Although non recourse loans are generally more widely accepted, conflicts can arise if a funder’s financial interests diverge from those of the client. For example, a lender may prefer an earlier settlement that ensures repayment, while a client may wish to pursue prolonged litigation in hopes of a larger recovery. The article emphasizes that lawyers must retain full independence in decision making and ensure that funding agreements do not give funders control over litigation strategy or settlement decisions.

Client consent and transparency are also central considerations. Attorneys should disclose funding arrangements where required, obtain informed client consent before sharing any information with funders, and remain mindful of evolving court disclosure requirements.

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.