Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Funder's Corner

Raising the Bar for Client Services in the Legal Industry

By Richard Culberson |
March 18, 2025

Raising the Bar for Client Services in the Legal Industry

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.

Delivering exceptional client service in the legal industry isn’t about grand gestures or over-the-top perks. Instead, it’s about providing seamless, efficient, and consistent experience—ensuring clients feel supported, informed, and confident in your expertise.

Legal professionals instinctively prioritize client satisfaction, knowing that trust and reputation are everything in the industry. However, keeping clients happy doesn’t require excessive handholding or elaborate corporate hospitality. True exceptional service comes from delivering reliable, solutions-focused support that alleviates stress and allows clients to focus on their priorities.

What Does Seamless Client Service Look Like in Law?

The key is demonstrating value by making legal processes smoother, less stressful, and more efficient. Clients don’t just seek legal expertise—they seek peace of mind that comes from knowing their matter is in good hands, that communication will be clear, and that their legal team will proactively anticipate their needs.

For law firms to reach this high level in client service, it means keeping promises, handling matters efficiently, and exceeding expectations where it matters most—through expertise, responsiveness, and a seamless experience.

How to Build Long-Term Client Loyalty

Focusing on client experience is often a thankless task in the short term, as good service is expected, while poor service is called out. However, over time, delivering consistently excellent service will build trust and loyalty because when clients know they can rely on you, they are more likely to return for future matters and refer others to your firm.

However, being dependable doesn’t mean standing still. Instead, by understanding client touchpoints and pain points, legal professionals can provide even greater value—sometimes before clients even realize they need it.

The Role of Personalization in Legal Client Service

Every client is unique, and every client has unique needs, and it goes without saying that tailoring your approach to those needs is a key differentiator in the legal industry. Even if it is the same type of case as the one you have just handled, it is still unique and requires personalized updates, proactive case management, and thoughtful communication. This will only serve to enhance the client experience and demonstrate that your firm values their business.

What’s more, providing this level of service turns satisfied clients into ambassadors for your firm. While appreciation gifts or hospitality, for example, can be a nice touch, they are meaningless without the reliable service behind them. The true measure of outstanding client service is in making complex legal matters as smooth and stress-free as possible.

Seven Pillars of Seamless Legal Client Service

To consistently deliver outstanding client service, legal professionals should focus on these key principles:

  1. Understand Your Client – Know their goals, concerns, and expectations.
  2. Deliver Convenience and Ease of Use – Make processes straightforward and accessible.
  3. Be Proactive – Anticipate client needs before they arise.
  4. Personalize Your Approach – Tailor communication and solutions to each client.
  5. Communicate Clearly and Regularly – Keep clients informed without overwhelming them.
  6. Keep Your Promises – Reliability builds trust and long-term relationships.
  7. Seek and Act on Feedback – Continuously improve based on client insights.

Reframing the goal from going “above and beyond” to making the legal journey as effortless as possible will create a strong foundation for long-term success. And by doing so, law firms can build lasting client loyalty and a reputation for excellence that sets them apart in an increasingly competitive industry.

About the author

Richard Culberson

Richard Culberson

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.