Trending Now
Commercial Funder's Corner Special Features Thought Leadership

The Next Wave of AI: What’s Really Coming in 2025

By Pete Hanlon |
January 29, 2025

The Next Wave of AI: What’s Really Coming in 2025

The following post was contributed by Pete Hanlon, Chief Technology Officer of Moneypenny.

As CTO of Moneypenny, the leading outsourced communications company, Pete Hanlon brings a unique perspective to the transformative technology trends set to shape 2025 for lawyers. From advancements in AI to the realities of integration and regulation, he foresees pivotal changes that could redefine the legal profession and beyond.

Here’s a deep dive into what lies ahead—not just the obvious shifts, but the deeper changes that could impact how lawyers work,.

Open Source Is Coming for the Crown

The most exciting battle in AI isn’t unfolding in corporate labs, it’s happening in the open source community. They’re catching up fast, and were starting to see open source models going head to head with industry leaders such as OpenAI o1 and Claud-Sonnet-3.5. This isn’t just about matching performance metrics. It’s about making AI accessible to both large and small law firms that have been held back by data privacy concerns, opening doors for firms that have struggled to leverage this technology. The result? A new era where AI is democratized, accessible to all, and no longer controlled by closed source businesses.

Forget AI Replacing Lawyers – Think AI as Your Digital Colleague

Remember when everyone thought AI would replace many law firm jobs overnight? That’s not how it’s playing out. Instead, we’re witnessing the emergence of hybrid teams where AI takes on the repetitive tasks, leaving people free to handle more complex challenges. It’s less about replacing jobs and more about using AI to super power people and using data to enable smarter decision making. Moneypenny, for example, delivers outsourced communication solutions that blend the efficiency of AI with the personal touch of real people. This balanced approach boosts productivity and enhances customer satisfaction. 

Integration: The Real Challenge Nobody’s Talking About

Here’s where things get interesting and complicated. The next phase isn’t about building brand new AI systems, for lawyers it’s about weaving them seamlessly into existing business processes, work flows and infrastructure. Picture CRM systems that can predict what customers need, knowledge bases that update themselves, conversations that flow naturally between voice and text, and customer support that breaks language barriers. We understand the importance of seamless integration, and at Moneypenny, we’re fully embracing it helping legal teams embed AI powered systems into their infrastructure seamlessly . 

Industry Specific Models: Tailored AI for Specialized Needs

We’re entering an era of industry specific LLMs tailored for the legal field. These models will come pre loaded with domain-specific knowledge, enabling firms to deploy AI that understands their unique requirements, language, and regulatory needs. In finance, LLMs could support compliance and offer investment insights. In law, they could streamline contract review and case law analysis. These specialized models will allow companies to quickly implement AI that’s relevant, compliant, and impactful in their field.

The Reality Check Is Coming

Some firms may soon realize they’ve taken on more than they can handle with AI adoption, facing a range of unexpected challenges. Many will struggle with complex integration issues as they attempt to launch AI initiatives within existing systems. Additionally, there may be difficulties in managing the high expectations around AI’s capabilities, as reality often falls short of the hype surrounding its potential. 

Regulation: The Elephant in the Room

Law firms should prepare for the growing impact of AI regulations, particularly in customer facing applications. Forward thinking organizations are already taking steps to build transparency into their AI systems, overhauling data governance practices to ensure accountability. They are creating detailed audit trails to track AI decision making and making sure that their systems are both fair and accessible. These proactive measures not only help them stay compliant but also foster trust with their customers.

What This Means for lawyers

The next year won’t just be about AI getting better – it’ll be about AI getting smarter about how it fits into our existing world. Success won’t come from blindly adopting every new AI tool. It’ll come from carefully choosing where AI can genuinely improve how lawyers work.

The winners won’t be the companies with the most advanced AI. They’ll be the ones who figure out how to blend AI and human capabilities in ways that make sense for their business and their customers. Yes, we’ll see AI continuing to be more accessible and capable. But the real story will be about how lawyers learn to use it wisely. After all, technology is just a tool – it’s how the legal profession use it that matters.

About the author

Pete Hanlon

Pete Hanlon

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.

Case Developments Commercial

Janus Henderson Affiliates Lose Early Bid in Litigation Finance Dispute

By John Freund |

Janus Henderson Group affiliates have suffered an early procedural setback in a closely watched litigation finance dispute that underscores the internal tensions that can arise within funder-backed investment structures and joint ventures.

Bloomberg Law reports that a Delaware Chancery Court judge has refused to dismiss claims brought by Calumet Capital Partners against several entities linked to Janus Henderson. The ruling allows the case to proceed into discovery, rejecting arguments that the complaint failed to state viable claims. Calumet alleges that the defendants engaged in a concerted effort to undermine a litigation finance joint venture in order to force a buyout of Calumet’s interests on unfavorable terms.

According to the complaint, the dispute centers on governance and control issues within a litigation finance vehicle that was designed to deploy capital into funded legal claims. Calumet contends that Janus Henderson affiliated entities systematically blocked proposed funding deals, interfered with relationships, and restricted the venture’s ability to operate as intended. These actions, Calumet claims, were aimed at depressing the value of its stake and pressuring it into an exit at a steep discount.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that their actions were contractually permitted and that Calumet’s allegations were insufficient to support claims such as breach of contract and tortious interference. The court disagreed at this stage, finding that Calumet had plausibly alleged misconduct that warrants further factual development. While the ruling does not determine the merits of the case, it keeps alive serious allegations about how litigation finance partnerships are managed and unwound when commercial interests diverge.