Trending Now
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

Malaysia’s New Arbitration Funding Rules Follow Collapse of Therium-Backed Sulu Claim

Two Malaysian jurists have published a retrospective on the Sulu arbitration, drawing a direct line from the failure of the funded US$15 billion claim against Malaysia to the statutory framework the country has since built around third-party funding of arbitration.

As reported by The Edge Malaysia, the piece is written by Tan Sri Zainun Ali, a former Federal Court judge, and barrister J J Chan. They note that the claim brought by parties describing themselves as heirs of the Sultan of Sulu "was reportedly backed by third-party litigation funding, attributed in public reports to Therium Capital Management," on the usual basis that the funder would take a return if the claim succeeded.

It did not. The Paris Court of Appeal annulled the award in full on 9 December 2025, holding that no valid arbitration agreement capable of binding Malaysia existed. The claimants were ordered to pay Malaysia €200,000 in costs, and separately lost costs orders in proceedings before the Netherlands Supreme Court.

The legislative response is the part with the longest reach. Malaysia's Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 took effect on 1 January 2026 and, in the authors' description, "brings third-party funding of arbitration within a clear statutory framework," requiring disclosure of both the funding arrangement and the identity of the funder.

For funders, the sequence is instructive: a single high-profile enforcement campaign against a sovereign produced a disclosure regime that will now apply to every funded arbitration seated in the jurisdiction.

Commercial

New York Poll Finds Nearly 80% of Voters Would End Third-Party Litigation Funding

A statewide survey of likely New York voters has found that close to four in five would do away with third-party litigation funding altogether, placing the practice among the least popular items in a broad tort reform poll.

According to the Empire Center for Public Policy, which commissioned the survey from Cygnal and published the results on 2 September, 79.7% said they support ending the arrangement under which outside investors finance lawsuits in return for a share of any recovery.

Litigation funding did not stand alone. The poll found 94.5% supporting prosecution of staged-accident fraud, 83.4% favouring limits on pain-and-suffering awards, 79.7% backing changes to workplace-injury liability rules, 77% supporting reforms aimed at frivolous lawsuits, and 66.6% in favour of amending the Scaffold Law, New York's absolute-liability statute for elevation-related construction injuries.

The clustering matters as much as the individual figures. Funding is being tested here alongside fraud and damages caps rather than as a discrete question about access to capital, and the framing offered to respondents describes investors financing lawsuits for a portion of the proceeds without reference to claimants who could not otherwise bring a case.

New York enacted consumer legal funding protections earlier this year, and the state has no disclosure statute covering commercial funding. Polling of this kind is likely to be cited in Albany as the next session approaches, and funders should expect the 79.7% figure to travel well beyond the survey it came from.

Commercial

DIFC Court Orders Defendant to Reveal Who Is Funding His Legal Team in $456M TrueUSD Case

A Dubai court has given a defendant in a $456 million stablecoin dispute until 7 September to swear an affidavit identifying who has been paying his lawyers, in an unusually direct judicial demand for the source of a litigant's legal funding.

As reported by CryptoSlate, the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts made the order in *Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC and others*, the proceedings over $456 million transferred out of the reserves backing the TrueUSD token. Matthew William Brittain, one of the respondents, must disclose by 4pm Gulf Standard Time.

The order is specific about what is wanted. Brittain must give the amounts, dates and bank accounts behind fees paid to Quinn Emanuel, Horizons, Gall, Campbells and FTI Consulting, identify the original sources and ultimate beneficial owners of those funds, explain how the accounts were funded and produce supporting documents. It singles out $1,083,912.49 paid by Aria Bio Industries FZE on 31 October 2025.

Compliance is required "to the best of his ability," and the court indicated that further adjournments would need "the most extreme circumstances" backed by strong evidence. Sanctions are not automatic; Techteryx would have to apply. A committal hearing with a four-day estimate is listed for 26 October.

Most disclosure fights concern claimant-side funding. This one runs the other way, and shows a court treating the defence's funding chain as a matter it is entitled to see.