Trending Now
Commercial Law Firm Corner Legal Innovation Thought Leadership

How WFH Communication is Impacting Law Firms and Legal Funders

By Kris Altiere |

The following article was contributed by Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing for Moneypenny.

The boundaries between professional and personal life have blurred, largely due to technology and the pandemic, which forced firms to be available 24/7. Since COVID, the number of clients and prospects engaging with businesses at all hours has surged, driven by the adoption of tools like live chat—which, at one point, accounted for 37% of interactions outside traditional 9-to-5 hours. In fact, a Moneypenny study conducted with Censuswide, surveying over 2,000 U.S. consumers, found that 58% of respondents now accept work-related communications outside regular hours. But is this shift a good thing?

Law firms should consider the communication training they give across all situations – how many work calls have been taken in the car, texts responded to at a soccer practice, or emails replied to quickly while at the doctor? Adjusting a firm’s contact channels should include recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of different forms of communication, and thinking about what’s best for clients and the team.

For firms, the “always on” employee presents some potential challenges, starting with the impact on the mental health of someone pressured to forever be on alert for a client or new business. It also can present vulnerabilities – Moneypenny’s research revealed 59% of respondents admitted to commonly sending texts and emails to the wrong person. Or, there is the liability of a stretched team responding to a client with a typo or incorrect information, feeling pressured to get right back and not taken time for a measured response. Along with an increased margin of error, digital communication can lack the emotion of a conversation, or may not appeal as a form of connection from a generational perspective.

Moneypenny looked into the popularity of different forms of work communications. Emails were number one at 49%, followed by the phone at 39%, text messaging at 35%, instant messaging such as Teams or Slack at 19%, and video conferencing like Zoom at 18%. Choices were particular to generations – emailing is the preferred choice for 56% of Baby Boomers and 54% of Gen X, while only 28% of Gen Z prefer it. Instant messaging was a more popular form of work communication for Gen Z (25%), but was chosen by only 16% of Gen X and 13% of Baby Boomers.

Moneypenny encourages firms of all sizes to establish clear communication guidelines that best serve all of their constituents – their teams, their prospects, and their clients. After four years of being on call around the clock, teams are tired. If a firm can have the burden of the 2 a.m. call or chat placed in the hands of a capable and trained legal receptionist like Moneypenny’s, they can ensure it’s not just fielded, but fielded well, and their team undisturbed.

Setting healthy business-life boundaries is a lofty goal that firms should consider setting this year – making themselves a little more unavailable to make themself more available. Fielding a call late at night or during a mad rush does a disservice by potentially inhibiting work flow, mental health, quality and integrity of the work. In what seems like an increasingly scattered world, reclaiming focus by letting someone else “get the phone” could just be revolutionary.

—

Kris Altiere is US Head of Marketing at Moneypenny. Moneypenny’s unique blend of brilliant people and AI technology integrate seamlessly to deliver customer conversations that unlock valuable opportunities for law firms, 24/7.

Kris is passionate about combining creativity and data-driven approaches to deliver impactful campaigns. A natural leader and mentor, she thrives on empowering teams, fostering collaboration, and ensuring Moneypenny’s solutions help firms stay ahead in an ever-evolving market.

About the author

Kris Altiere

Kris Altiere

Commercial

View All
Commercial Law Firm Corner Special Features Thought Leadership

Should Courts Encourage Litigation Funding?

By Ken Rosen |

The following was contributed by Ken Rosen Esq, Founder of Ken Rosen P.C. Ken is a frequent contributor to legal journals on current topics of interest to the bankruptcy and restructuring industry.

In many Chapter 11 cases, the debtor’s estate holds valuable litigation claims, which can be a key source of recovery. However, pursuing these claims can be daunting when the defendant has substantially greater financial resources. Well-funded defendants may use aggressive litigation tactics to exploit the estate’s limited means.

Unsecured creditors, often receiving only token recoveries, may be hesitant to approve further legal spending. Debtor’s counsel, wary of nonpayment if litigation fails, may also be reluctant to pursue claims. Contingency fee arrangements can reduce estate risk, but they shift risk to counsel—particularly when facing a resource-rich defendant.

To gain creditor support, more than the committee counsel’s confidence may be needed. Litigation funding can bridge the gap. It provides capital to pursue claims without draining estate resources, helping to fulfill Chapter 11’s core goals: preserving going concern value and maximizing creditor recovery, as recognized by the Supreme Court.

Litigation funding is especially valuable when the estate lacks liquidity. It enables the debtor to pursue meritorious claims against stronger opponents, discouraging defense strategies aimed at exhausting the plaintiff through expensive discovery and motion practice.

The Funder’s Evaluation Process:

  1. Legal Merits – Assessing the strength of claims based on facts, evidence, and precedent.
  2. Recovery Potential – Estimating damages or settlement value to ensure adequate return.
  3. Litigation Costs – Forecasting expenses to trial or resolution.
  4. Risk Analysis – Evaluating the defendant’s ability to pay, jurisdictional issues, and delays.
  5. Independent Review –Funders conduct rigorous due diligence before committing capital.

A funder’s involvement serves as a “second opinion” validating the case. Their willingness to invest can bolster confidence in the claim’s merits and justify some estate contribution. It can serve as a soft endorsement of the litigation’s potential value. When a party seeks authorization for litigation funding it should be viewed by the Bankruptcy Court as weighing in favor of approval.

Whether or not funding is obtained, the terms of any arrangement should be redacted/sealed and remain confidential—shared only with the Court and key constituent counsel. The rationale for proceeding without funding should likewise remain undisclosed. Keeping defense counsel in the dark preserves strategic advantage.

Conclusion:

Litigation funding can be a powerful tool for Chapter 11 estates, enabling pursuit of valuable claims, minimizing financial strain, and supporting reorganization efforts. This strategy aligns with Chapter 11’s purpose and can significantly enhance the likelihood of a successful outcome. Key constituents and the court should recognize that.

Commercial Deals

Ramco’s Cristina Soler on the Benefits of Monetizing Arbitration Awards

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered yesterday, the availability of legal funding is having a significant impact on the world of arbitration, with funders offering a variety of services from financing the initial claim to supporting claimants through the enforcement of awards.

In an interview with Confilegal, Cristina Soler, CEO of Ramco Litigation Funding, discusses the growing use of award monetization in arbitral proceedings and the increasing adoption of litigation funding both in Spain and across Europe. Confilegal spoke with Soler at the 11th edition of the Open de Arbitraje in Madrid, where she participated in a panel discussion with Emma Morales (Simmons & Simmons), Damian Vallejo (Dunning Rievaman & Macdonald LLP), Carlos Iso (SACYR). Lourdes Martínez de Victoria Gómez (Departamento de Arbitrajes Internacionales), and María Rodríguez (ACCIONA).

In the interview, Soler highlights that the end of any arbitration proceedings is never marked simply with a party obtaining an award, as the enforcement of that award is often a long and expensive process. Soler explains that funders like Ramco can provide support in one of two ways: either by providing the financing to cover the legal costs of enforcement, or through the monetization of an award where it is sold or assigned to the funder for an upfront payment.

Soler emphasises that the main benefits of award monetization are the immediate provision of liquidity to the claimant and the mitigation of any risk involved in the complex enforcement process. She also goes on to explain that award monetization has become more sophisticated with different payment structures available and a growing secondary market where these awards are bought and sold.

More insights from Soler are available in the full interview on Confilegal’s website.

Commercial Legal Innovation

JurisTrade CEO Discusses Litigation Asset Marketplace Opportunities

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered in March of this year, JurisTrade launched the first phase of its Litigation Asset Marketplace offering over $70 million in litigation funding opportunities, with the aim of bridging the gap between available capital and active cases in need of financing.

In an interview with Global Finance, JurisTrade’s CEO, James Koutoulas discusses the company’s new marketplace, explaining the benefits it offers to both investors and plaintiffs who find themselves in need of additional funding during a case. 

Koutoulas describes the platform as “the first secondary marketplace for litigation assets”, with the marketplace designed to allow investors to buy and sell these opportunities just like tradeable securities. Koutoulas says that this will generate “two or three turns on these cases”, with the flexibility of this model allowing “investors to pick when they want to come in, like VC investors pick the A-round or C-round.”

Koutoulas also clarifies that the marketplace is not targeting retail investors, as the minimum stake is set at $500,000. Instead JurisTrade’s platform is focused on offering these opportunities to institutional investors and family offices, highlighting that due to the variety of cases “every investment is very bespoke.”