Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
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 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.