Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is a Lifeline for Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck
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.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Richard Culberson

Richard Culberson

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Secures Landmark Win Against BHP in Brazil Dam Case

By John Freund |

In a major breakthrough for cross-border group litigation, Pogust Goodhead has secured a resounding victory in its long-running claim against mining giant BHP over the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Mariana, Brazil. The UK High Court has ruled BHP liable for the disaster, which killed 19 people and unleashed a wave of toxic sludge through the Rio Doce basin, displacing entire communities and leaving lasting environmental damage.

According to Non-Billable, the ruling confirms BHP’s liability under both Brazilian environmental law and the Brazilian Civil Code. In rejecting the company’s jurisdictional and limitation defenses, the court made clear that English law recognizes the right of over 600,000 Brazilian claimants to pursue redress in UK courts. The judgment underscores BHP’s operational and strategic control over the Samarco joint venture and found that the company was aware of critical dam defects more than a year before the collapse. The attempt to distance itself through the argument of being an indirect polluter was also dismissed.

This outcome is a critical milestone in one of the largest group actions ever brought in the UK. A trial on damages is now scheduled for October 2026, with case management proceedings set to resume in December.

The win comes amid internal turbulence at Pogust Goodhead, including recent leadership changes and reported tensions with its litigation finance backers, but the firm remains on course to press forward with what could be a multibillion-dollar compensation phase.

Commercial

Incentive Payments Not Essential for Named Plaintiffs, Study Finds

By John Freund |

A new empirical study by Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School challenges a widely held assumption in class action litigation: that incentive payments are necessary to recruit named plaintiffs. The research, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, analyzed federal class-action filings from January 2017 through May 2024, using data drawn from the legal-tech platform Lex Machina. It leveraged a natural experiment created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s 2020 ruling that barred incentive payments in the 11th Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama) while other circuits continued permitting them.

An article in Reuters states that according to the analysis, the volume of class-actions filed in the 11th Circuit did not meaningfully decline relative to other circuits after the ban on incentive payments. In other words, the absence of such payments did not appear to impair the ability of plaintiffs’ counsel to find willing named plaintiffs.

Fitzpatrick and his co-author, graduate student Colton Cronin, observed that although courts routinely approve modest incentive awards (averaging about $7,500 in non-securities class actions) to compensate the named plaintiff’s extra effort post-settlement, the data suggest that payments may not be a driving factor in recruitment.

Fitzpatrick emphasizes that this is not to say incentive payments have no role. He notes that there remains a moral argument for compensating named plaintiffs who shoulder additional burdens. These include depositions, discovery responses, trial participation, and public exposure. Yet the study’s finding is notable. Motivation for class-representation may be rooted more in altruism, reputation or justice-seeking than in straightforward financial gain.

For the legal-funding industry and class-action litigators, the findings are significant. They suggest that reliance on incentive payments to secure named plaintiffs may be less critical than previously assumed, potentially lowering a transactional cost input in structuring class settlements. On the other hand, third-party funders and litigation financiers should consider how the supply of willing named plaintiffs might remain stable even in jurisdictions restricting such payments.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Merricks Calls for Ban on Secret Arbitrations in Funded Claims

By John Freund |

Walter Merricks, the class representative behind the landmark Mastercard case, has publicly criticized the use of confidential arbitration clauses in litigation funding agreements tied to collective proceedings.

According to Legal Futures, Merricks spoke at an event where he argued that such clauses can leave class representatives exposed and unsupported, particularly when disputes arise with funders. He emphasized that disagreements between funders and class representatives should be heard in open proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), not behind closed doors.

His comments come in the wake of the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard claim—significantly lower than the original £14 billion figure cited in early filings. During the settlement process, Merricks became the target of an arbitration initiated by his funder, Innsworth Capital. The arbitration named him personally, prompting Mastercard to offer an indemnity of up to £10 million to shield him from personal financial risk.

Merricks warned that the confidentiality of arbitration allows funders to exert undue pressure on class representatives, who often lack institutional backing or leverage. He called on the CAT to scrutinize and reject funding agreements that designate arbitration as the sole forum for dispute resolution. In his view, transparency and public accountability are vital in collective actions, especially when funders and claimants diverge on strategy or settlement terms.

His remarks highlight a growing debate in the legal funding industry over the proper governance of funder-representative relationships. If regulators move to curtail arbitration clauses, it could force funders to navigate public scrutiny and recalibrate their contractual protections in UK group litigation.