Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto
Commercial Law Firm Corner Legal Innovation Thought Leadership

How WFH Communication is Impacting Law Firms and Legal Funders

By Kris Altiere |
February 19, 2025

How WFH Communication is Impacting Law Firms and Legal Funders

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 Deals

Slater and Gordon Secures Renewed £30M Financing with Harbour

By John Freund |

Slater and Gordon has announced the renewal of its committed financing facility with Harbour, securing an enhanced £30 million loan agreement that strengthens the firm’s financial position and supports its ongoing strategic plans.

According to Slater and Gordon, the facility replaces the previous arrangement and will run for at least three years, underscoring the depth of the relationship between the firm and Harbour, a long-standing provider of capital to law firms.

The renewed financing follows a £30 million equity raise earlier in 2025 and is intended to provide financing certainty as Slater and Gordon continues to invest across its core practice areas and enhance its client service offering. Chief executive Nils Stoesser highlighted the progress the business has made in recent years and said the renewed facility provides confidence as the firm pursues its longer-term strategic priorities.

Ellora MacPherson, Harbour’s managing director and chief investment officer, described the commitment as the next stage in a constructive and established partnership. She noted Harbour’s support for Slater and Gordon’s ambitions, particularly around improving service delivery and outcomes for clients.

Over the past two years, Slater and Gordon has focused on strengthening its family law, employment, and personal injury practices, while also expanding its capacity to handle large-scale group actions. The firm has also continued to invest in technology and operational improvements aimed at improving the overall client experience.

Commercial

Litigation Finance Faces Regulatory, MSO, and Insurance Crossroads in 2026

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry, now estimated at roughly $16.1 billion, is heading into 2026 amid growing uncertainty over regulation, capital structures, and its relationship with adjacent industries. After several years of rapid growth and heightened scrutiny, market participants are increasingly focused on how these pressures may reshape the sector.

Bloomberg Law identifies four central questions likely to define the industry’s near-term future. One of the most closely watched issues is whether federal regulation will finally materialize in a meaningful way. Legislative proposals have ranged from restricting foreign sovereign capital in U.S. litigation to taxing litigation finance returns. While several initiatives surfaced in 2025, political gridlock and election year dynamics raise doubts about whether comprehensive federal action will advance in the near term, leaving the industry operating within a patchwork of existing rules.

Another major development is the expansion of alternative investment structures, particularly the growing use of management services organizations. MSOs allow third party investors to own or finance non legal aspects of law firm operations, offering a potential pathway for deeper capital integration without directly violating attorney ownership rules. Interest in these models has increased among both litigation funders and large law firms, signaling a broader shift in how legal services may be financed and managed.

The industry is also watching the outcome of several high profile disputes that could have outsized implications for funders. Long running, multibillion dollar cases involving sovereign defendants continue to test assumptions about risk, duration, and appellate exposure in funded matters.

Finally, tensions with the insurance industry remain unresolved. Insurers have intensified efforts to link litigation funding to rising claim costs and are exploring policy mechanisms that would require disclosure of third party funding arrangements.

Taken together, these dynamics suggest that 2026 could be a defining year for litigation finance, as evolving regulation, new capital models, and external pushback shape the industry’s next phase of development.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Liability Insurers Push Disclosure Requirements Targeting Litigation Funding

By John Freund |

Commercial liability insurers are escalating their long-running dispute with the litigation funding industry by introducing policy language that could require insured companies to disclose third-party funding arrangements. The move reflects mounting concern among insurers that litigation finance is contributing to rising claim costs and reshaping litigation dynamics in ways carriers struggle to underwrite or control.

An article in Bloomberg Law reports that the Insurance Services Office, a Verisk Analytics unit that develops standard insurance policy language, has drafted an optional provision that would compel policyholders to reveal whether litigation funders or law firms with a financial stake are backing claims against insured defendants. While adoption of the provision would be voluntary, insurers could begin incorporating it into commercial liability policies as early as 2026.

The proposed disclosure requirement is part of a broader push by insurers to gain greater visibility into litigation funding arrangements, which they argue can encourage more aggressive claims strategies and higher settlement demands, particularly in mass tort and complex commercial litigation. Insurers have increasingly linked these trends to what they describe as social inflation, a term used to capture rising jury awards and litigation costs that outpace economic inflation.

For policyholders, the new language could introduce additional compliance obligations and strategic considerations. Companies that rely on litigation funding, whether directly or through counterparties, may be forced to weigh the benefits of financing against potential coverage implications.

Litigation funders and law firms are watching developments closely. Funding agreements are typically treated as confidential, and mandatory disclosure to insurers could raise concerns about privilege, work product protections, and competitive sensitivity. At the same time, insurers have been criticized for opposing litigation finance while also exploring their own litigation-related investment products, highlighting tensions within the market.

If widely adopted, insurer-driven disclosure requirements could represent a meaningful shift in how litigation funding intersects with insurance. The development underscores the growing influence of insurers in shaping transparency expectations and suggests that litigation funders may increasingly find themselves drawn into coverage debates that extend well beyond the courtroom.