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
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.