Trending Now
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

Trucking Group Presses Case Against Hidden Funding in Crash Lawsuits

The trucking industry is intensifying its scrutiny of third-party litigation funding, arguing that undisclosed outside capital is distorting the economics of truck-crash lawsuits and driving up the cost of doing business.

As reported by Land Line Media, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association contends that outside investors — sometimes including foreign entities — are bankrolling crash litigation without transparency, prolonging cases, inflating damages, and leaving plaintiffs with modest returns while funders capture the larger share of any recovery. In some instances, the group warns, foreign government involvement raises national-security questions.

The article frames the issue against a wave of state-level legislation. Ohio has enacted disclosure requirements and barred foreign participation outright, with Rep. Meredith Craig declaring that "foreign actors have profited off Ohio citizens and businesses by investing in our courts." North Carolina has gone further, imposing an outright ban on third-party funding backed by fines of up to $50,000, while New Hampshire has prohibited financing by foreign governments and designated adversarial nations. Michigan has approved disclosure and registration requirements and banned foreign entities and incentive payments to attorneys and medical professionals.

Industry voices echo the theme: Tom Balzer of the Ohio Trucking Association argues that such funding "incentivizes frivolous claims, prolongs litigation, and inflates damages." Together, the measures reflect a coordinated push to bring litigation finance in trucking cases into public view — and a signal that transportation is becoming a central front in the national funding-transparency debate.

Commercial

Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis Charts Diverging Rules for Litigation Funding

Third-party litigation funding has grown into a multibillion-dollar force across major legal markets, yet the rules governing it remain strikingly inconsistent from one jurisdiction to the next, according to a new cross-jurisdictional analysis.

As reported by JD Supra, the review — authored by Arthur Coviello, Colin Dunn, and Mark Selwyn of WilmerHale — examines third-party funding across the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, China, and the Unified Patent Court. It notes that funders now manage billions in assets, with an estimated 20% committed to patent litigation, and that the U.S. leads but no longer dominates a market with established industries in the U.K., Germany, and China.

The authors highlight a sharp regulatory divergence. The United States has built a patchwork of state and federal measures, including disclosure requirements, while the U.K., Germany, China, and the UPC have largely declined to adopt comprehensive rules despite voicing similar concerns about conflicts of interest, funder control, and foreign influence.

The analysis catalogs recent developments: at least five bills pending in Congress addressing transparency and national-security concerns, the lingering effects of the U.K.'s 2023 PACCAR decision and the Civil Justice Council's call for "light touch" regulation, the European Commission's November 2025 decision not to adopt proposed funding rules, and the International Trade Commission's recent disclosure proposal. Without mandatory disclosure, the authors argue, judges and parties cannot reliably assess who holds a stake in a case or where potential conflicts may lie.

Commercial

Funding Collapse Ends Musical-Instrument Collective Action, Triggering £1.5M in Costs

A proposed UK collective action against five musical-instrument manufacturers has collapsed after its litigation funding fell through, leaving the proposed class representative facing roughly £1.5 million in costs.

As reported by Legal Futures, the Competition Appeal Tribunal addressed the withdrawal of five collective proceedings brought by proposed class representative Elisabetta Sciallis against Fender, Korg, Roland, Yamaha, and Casio. The claims followed a Competition and Markets Authority finding that the manufacturers had restricted retailers' freedom to set prices online.

Ms Sciallis had initially pointed to a funding agreement with North Wall Capital, first set at £6.5 million and later increased to £18 million as more claims were filed. Negotiations between the funder and her firm, Pogust Goodhead, ceased in early 2023, but the tribunal found that the funder's departure was not clearly disclosed until shortly before a March 2026 case management conference — at which point the firm confirmed the North Wall agreement had never materialised and that some 25 alternative funders had been approached without success.

The tribunal, which was critical of how the funding position had been communicated, ordered indemnity costs from April 2023 onward, including £608,000 summarily assessed for three defendants and interim orders of £850,000 for two others. Ms Sciallis withdrew all five proceedings ahead of a June 2026 hearing that would have examined the funding. The case underscores how quickly a collapse in third-party backing can unwind even a well-advanced collective claim.