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

Merricks Urges UK Court to Reject Innsworth’s Challenge Over £200M Mastercard Settlement Distribution

By John Freund |

The class representative in the Merricks v Mastercard collective claim has urged a London court to reject litigation funder Innsworth Advisors' judicial review of the £200 million settlement distribution, in what observers describe as the first substantive test of a Competition Appeal Tribunal settlement decision.

As reported by Law360, Walter Merricks's legal team told the High Court on Wednesday that Innsworth has already received an adequate return from the CAT-approved settlement and that its challenge should be dismissed. Innsworth argued earlier in the week that the distribution scheme is "illogical" and "flawed," contending that the tribunal failed to properly assess the funder's recovery.

The CAT had divided the settlement into three pots. Pot 1, totalling £100 million, is ring-fenced for class members. Pot 2, approximately £45 million, covers Innsworth's litigation costs. Pot 3, approximately £55 million, allocates roughly £23 million to Innsworth as the profit element of its return, bringing its total recovery to around £68 million. Innsworth contends that this amounts to only a 0.5x return on more than £45 million invested, and disputes the methodology used to set the figure.

The case has drawn close attention from the UK funding sector. A judicial review of a CAT-sanctioned distribution could establish important parameters around how courts assess funder returns in collective proceedings, particularly at a moment when the tribunal has signaled heightened scrutiny of certification and take-up in entrepreneurial class actions.

Commercial

Germany’s Federal Court of Justice Imposes New Limits on Funders and Claim Aggregators in $590M Trucks Cartel Ruling

By John Freund |

The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Germany's Federal Court of Justice, has issued a closely watched judgment in the long-running Trucks Cartel litigation that upholds the use of collective claims vehicles in principle but sets significant guardrails around third-party litigation funding and claim aggregation.

As reported by Leaders League, the May 12, 2026 ruling addressed claims arising from the European Commission's 2016 cartel decision, brought on behalf of more than 3,000 entities across 21 jurisdictions and seeking approximately US$590 million. The BGH confirmed that cartel damages claims may be collectively aggregated and enforced by registered claims collection entities, reinforcing collective redress mechanisms in German private antitrust litigation.

The court imposed two material limits. First, third-party funders cannot exercise control that compromises the claims vehicle's obligation to act exclusively in the interests of the assignors, a conflict-of-interest standard that goes to funder governance rights. Second, claims aggregation cannot obstruct effective judicial review; excessive volume or complexity that renders proper assessment "impracticable" may violate the German Legal Services Act and result in dismissal for procedural abuse.

The BGH overturned the appellate decision and remanded the matter, directing the lower court to examine whether the funding structure created incompatible conflicts and, if the assignments survive, to divide claims within six months. The decision is expected to shape the architecture of funded collective antitrust actions across Europe, particularly in jurisdictions modelling Germany's claims-collection framework.

Commercial

Michigan House Passes Third-Party Litigation Funding Bill 60–45, Sending Measure to Democratic Senate

By John Freund |

The Michigan House of Representatives has approved House Bill 5281, a Republican-sponsored measure that would impose registration, disclosure, and contracting restrictions on third-party litigation funders operating in the state, advancing the bill to a Senate where Democrats hold a narrow majority.

As reported by The Center Square, the bill cleared the chamber on a 60–45 vote, with four Democrats joining Republicans in support: Tulio Liberati, Peter Herzberg, Angela Witwer, and Will Snyder. Sponsor Rep. Mike Harris framed the legislation in floor remarks by asking, "Who does it benefit to allow outside investors to influence decisions in Michigan courtrooms?"

The bill requires litigation funders to register with the Department of Insurance and Financial Services, pay a $10,000 application fee, and file annual reports on funding activity. It mandates a ten-day consumer cancellation window for funded contracts, prohibits kickbacks and referral fees, prohibits funder influence on case strategy, bans funding by foreign adversaries, and imposes caps on funder spending and recoveries from awards.

Backers cited industry analyses suggesting third-party litigation funding raises household costs through higher prices and lost tax revenue. The measure now heads to a Senate where Democrats hold an 20–18 majority and where the bill's path is uncertain. The House passage adds Michigan to the list of states considered most active on third-party funding regulation, alongside parallel efforts under way in Colorado, Florida, and Pennsylvania.