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

Trucking Industry Backs Federal Liability Bill Amid Litigation Funding Concerns

A bicameral bill introduced in Congress would bar liability claims premised on vehicle safety standards stricter than those set by federal regulators, and has drawn support from a trucking and insurance coalition that counts third-party litigation funding among the pressures driving up its costs.

As reported by Transport Topics, the Uniform Vehicle Safety Standards Act was introduced on August 6 by Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska, joined by Reps. David Rouzer, Jay Obernolte and Jake Ellzey, with a Senate companion from Sens. Deb Fischer and Cynthia Lummis. The measure would amend Title 49 of the U.S. Code to prohibit common law claims alleging that a vehicle should have met standards exceeding those established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

"In recent years, we've seen a sharp rise in lawsuits awarding damages based on state standards instead of the federal safety standards trucking companies are already required to meet," Flood said. Alex Rosen of the American Trucking Associations argued that where NHTSA has determined a standard strikes the right balance, "that expert determination should carry greater weight than hindsight judgments."

The bill itself contains no litigation funding provisions. Funding enters through the coalition assembled behind it, which includes the American Property Casualty Insurance Association and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies alongside nine trucking organizations and Werner Enterprises. Research from the American Transportation Research Institute cited in the piece identifies third-party litigation funding and staged accidents as evolving legal threats to carriers, and links excessive litigation to insurance premiums that have climbed 36% over eight years.

For funders, the significance is positional rather than legal. The trucking sector has become one of the more organized constituencies pressing for disclosure and restriction at the state level, and preemption bills of this kind widen the front without naming the industry directly.

Commercial

Conservative Columnist Argues Litigation Funding Limits Would Disarm the Right

A guest column published this week makes a right-of-center case against pending federal restrictions on third-party litigation funding, arguing that the measures would strip conservative activists and small business owners of the capital they need to litigate against better-resourced opponents.

Writing in The State Journal, Drew Johnson takes aim at the Protecting Our Courts From Foreign Manipulation Act, led by Rep. Ben Cline of Virginia, and at Senator Thom Tillis's proposal to impose a punitive tax on litigation funding proceeds. Johnson is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research and the 2026 Republican nominee for Nevada State Treasurer.

His central argument is that the bill's stated purpose, preventing foreign governments from bankrolling harassment suits, is already served by existing mechanisms including CFIUS review and judicial discretion, leaving the new disclosure requirements to do work their sponsors did not intend. Broad disclosure obligations, he contends, would deter funders from backing cases at all, and the resulting shortfall would fall hardest on plaintiffs without institutional balance sheets behind them.

Johnson illustrates the point with Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who lost an estimated 40% of his income during years of litigation before prevailing at the Supreme Court with backing from Alliance Defending Freedom. Absent outside support, he writes, Phillips "could have easily been forced to surrender."

The column is notable less for its policy analysis than for its author. Litigation funding restrictions have advanced largely on Republican votes, and the industry's defenders have generally come from the plaintiffs' bar. Johnson's framing, that citizens facing wealthy opponents should not be forced to fight alone, is an attempt to contest that ground.

Commercial

Five Years On, Arizona’s ABS Data Shows No Systemic Ethical Breakdown, Article Argues

An article published in the Arizona State University Corporate and Business Law Journal argues that five years of operating data under Arizona's Alternative Business Structure framework has not produced the ethical failures its opponents predicted, and that the debate is moving from theoretical objections to observable outcomes.

Writing in the ASU Corporate and Business Law Journal, Alex Chucri traces the framework to August 2020, when Arizona became the first state to eliminate ABA Model Rule 5.4 and permit non-lawyer ownership of law firms, with the ABS regime taking effect on January 1, 2021 under Arizona Supreme Court order R-20-0034. The central claim is structural: the state did not remove oversight so much as replace blanket prohibition with licensing, compliance obligations and regulatory accountability. Non-lawyers may hold equity, share profits and participate in management, but only under Supreme Court supervision, with approved compliance counsel, reporting procedures and audit requirements.

The article marshals the program's numbers. Licenses grew from two approvals in 2020 to 15 in 2021 and 25 in each of 2022 and 2023, reaching approximately 150 licensed entities by March 2026, with 114 ABSs actively operating during 2024. No ethics complaints were filed against ABS entities in the program's first three years; the first arrived in 2024, when the State Bar initiated disciplinary action involving two ABS-affiliated attorneys. A preliminary analysis of 2024 disciplinary actions, which the author acknowledges is limited by incomplete ABS staffing data, suggests ABS-affiliated lawyers faced discipline at a rate well below the broader Arizona attorney population.

Readers should weigh the source. Chucri is founder and CEO of Pravati Capital and in 2024 founded 1787 Legal Group, the Scottsdale ABS the article offers as its case in point. The argument nonetheless lands at a moment when several states, Illinois among them this week, are moving in the opposite direction, and Arizona remains the only jurisdiction with a five-year record to argue from.