Trending Now
Law Firm Corner Special Features Thought Leadership

The Rise of Arbitral Awards as an Asset Class in Latin America

By Micaela Ossio and 2 others |

The following piece was contributed by Ana Carolina Salomao, Founder of Montgomery, Micaela Ossio, Solicitor in England & Wales and Peruvian Attorney, Jessica Pineda, Legal Director at Pogust Goodhead, and Diego Saco Hatchwell, Partner at GCS Abogados.

International commercial arbitration is today one of the most demanded mechanisms for resolving disputes in Latin America. The practice has been bolstered by sustained regional growth, ongoing market liberalization efforts, and the pursuit of a less time consuming and specialized route to address increasingly complex cross-border transactions. As of 2023, the region ranks second in terms of party origin and third in terms of the jurisdictions where ICC arbitrations were seated[1], evidencing the region’s growing prominence in the global arbitration landscape. This push is building on the region’s growing appetite to attract new business opportunities by fostering safer and easier legal frameworks to do business.  

A key legal innovation in this regard has been the promotion of third party funding mechanisms.[2]  Two types of funding arrangements have particularly gained favor among investors: enforcement funding arrangements whereby investors provide non-recourse funding for the legal costs of the enforcement proceedings and realize returns only when the debt is collected, and award monetization arrangements where the funder advances capital to a claimant in exchange for a portion of the entitlement of the award[3].

In general, most major jurisdictions within the region contain express provisions that allow the assignment of economic rights arising from contracts or other legal sources and provisions that allow transferring rights that are subject to ongoing disputes, but not necessarily in the forms required by third party funding. As claimants (or their lawyers) seek to secure funding, they must thoroughly consider the jurisdictions where such arrangements are legally binding agreements[4]. As such, this article explores the financial case behind third party funding for litigation, particularly arbitral awards, as well as the market dynamics currently shaping the sector in Latin America. It also highlights the importance of designing adequate policy to promote the responsible growth of these practices in the region as well as gives insight to potential funders looking for attractive investment opportunities in a fast-evolving market.

The rise of litigation finance – why is it gaining momentum?

Even though the practice of litigation finance is not necessarily new – external funding of legal cases goes back at least a few decades – the understanding of legal claims as a financial asset class is still, in many ways, nascent. Currently, only around 50 dedicated funds exist globally, and in a 2019 survey, more than three quarters of respondent firms indicated they had significantly expanded their litigation finance practice and foresaw important growth moving forward.[5] Considering that the ICC docketed 890 cases in 2023, and far more civil claims of different nature flooded the worlds’ most mature litigation ecosystems (with close to 400,000 claims filed in the US alone), the industry has big room for growth and newcomer absorption.[6]

Despite a total industry value of USD13.5 billion as of 2023, investment in legal claims and legal futures is still largely concentrated in traditional litigation finance firms, particularly in the US, the UK and Australia.[7] Nonetheless, asset managers like BlackRock, PIMCO, KKAR and other alternative investment funds, notably credit funds, have recently entered the space, as a result of the asset class yielding an average return on investment of 20% over the last five years.[8] In fact, most litigation finance firms now target a hurdle rate of 15% to 35% and a holding period of two to three years (especially for commercial arbitration awards), placing returns at par or even above private equity companies.[9]

Despite this attractive return profile, a positive outcome on each individual investment largely depends on the merits of the funded claim, which creates uncertainty and concern for traditional institutional investors. Among other factors, insufficient precedents on certain matters hinders reliable predictions of returns and the asymmetry of information between the parties seeking funding and the capital providers still thwarts more skeptical investors to emphatically support this asset class. To close this gap, law firms and specialized litigation funders are working on investor-friendly frameworks to provide greater transparency relating to risks, expected returns and time to recover.

Investor concerns have also been heightened by recent regulation, particularly in Europe, a global hub for litigation finance. As shown by the recent frenzy caused by the Supreme Court decision in PACCAR[10] in the United Kingdom, or the Voss Report[11] in the European Union, regulation coming to the sector in up-and-coming regions such as Latin America seems to be inevitable. But despite these challenges, the outlook for market growth remains positive with large commercial arbitration cases currently dominating the market due to their significant value, international enforceability, and relatively swift proceedings.

The investment case for arbitral awards

In recent years, arbitral awards have emerged as a new and dynamic asset sub-class for investors in the litigation finance space. The main reason is that pursuant to the New York Convention[12], arbitration awards can be enforced within the jurisdictions of all signatory states and the process of enforcement tends to be easier and less politicized[13] than that of other asset classes, such as private or sovereign debt. In other words, arbitral awards can be fast-tracked on a global scale, ensuring the award’s commercial value. For example, the holders of defaulted Venezuelan/PDVSA notes have had little success in collecting their debt when compared to investor-state award holders, such as Crystallex,[14] Rusoro,[15] and ConocoPhillips,[16] who have been more successful in attaching Venezuelan assets abroad.  

Investors can also expect attractive interest rates. According to a 2020 study of ICC awards where PwC and Queen Mary University of London analyzed damages awards in international commercial arbitration,[17] the absolute rate of interest for 180 cases that were reviewed, ranged from 1% to 18% annually.  The study also noted that the rate of interest was frequently expressed as a mark-up over a benchmark such as LIBOR or by reference to a national legal interest rate. These interest rates can help to mitigate the economic downside in cases where the time to enforce the award takes longer than expected.  

Finally, since arbitration proceedings are generally private and confidential, arbitral awards tend to be of confidential nature unless the parties agree otherwise. This means that in cases of assignment of awards, the awards can remain in the name of the initial claimant allowing investors to operate away from the media spotlight. Similarly, it is often the case that investments in arbitral awards do not have to be reported and disclosure requirements tend to be limited.

All these characteristics have led to a burgeoning secondary market in which awards are sold by award-creditors at a discount, to buyers who take on the role of enforcing the full award. Considering the increasing number of awards coming on the market and with only a few funds tapping into it, it can currently be described as a buyers’ market. 

The market opportunity for Latin America

To become a regional hub in litigation finance, Latin America must stop addressing litigation merely as a “cost center” (i.e., a necessary but burdensome expense for those seeking justice). Contingent receivables arising from dispute resolution mechanisms shall be considered an asset class, one that can be monetized at various stages through mechanisms like litigation funding[18]. This mind shift needs to be rooted in the understanding that legal claims possess intrinsic value and can attract third-party investors who fund litigation in exchange for a share of the financial outcome if the case succeeds[19].

Brazil is spearheading this mindset shift and has been the first country to have arbitration chambers develop soft law regarding third-party funder involvement in arbitration procedures[20]. For example, Brazil’s precatórios offer private parties access to a well-established, constitutionally-recognized and liquid secondary market where they can assign their rights linked to a judicial or arbitral decision (a credit against a government entity) to investment funds. Colombia has also laid the groundwork for developing a secondary market for the transfer of judgments issued by courts in the context of the Armed Conflict. The Colombian state has established legal precedents that allow holders of these judgments to sell their rights in a secondary market, providing a liquidity solution for those seeking immediate capital.[21]

With the increasing recognition of arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism across key economies such as Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Peru, the region is poised for significant growth in third-party funding. As liquidity becomes an essential factor for enterprises, enforcement funding and monetizing of arbitral awards offers a way to unlock tied-up capital, allowing businesses to focus on growth while investors capitalize on the financial potential of their legal claims. It also enables smaller market players, such as SMEs and individual claimants, to finance complex claims against larger corporations or entities, expanding access to justice and promoting more equitable outcomes.

To this end, judicial systems in the Latin American region shall adopt pro-enforcement policies, like those seen in offshore jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, as highlighted in recent case law involving arbitral enforcement[22]. While the New York Convention has been widely adopted across the region, the inconsistent application of arbitral award enforcement by local courts can still pose a challenge for claimants. Clear and consistent legal frameworks, aligned with international best practice, will help attract more investors into the sector. Examples of such practices include the use of freezing injunctions and receiverships, both of which are essential in securing assets and managing them until enforcement is completed, and the availability of Norwich Pharmacal orders or similar disclosure orders, already recognized in jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, which allow claimants to obtain critical information about the debtor’s hidden assets or banking arrangements.

Building on the momentum

The momentum behind this market development in Latin America is growing, driven by a combination of factors including the asset class’s attractive return profile and an increased reliance on arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism, particularly following the economic pressures created by the COVID pandemic. Furthermore, the increasing focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in investment decisions is accelerating third-party funding in ESG-related arbitration cases, such as those involving environmental disputes or human rights violations. As judicial systems in emerging markets strive to expand access and provide a more equitable and fair administration of justice, transparency and simplicity in the arbitral award enforcement and monetization space might provide a very cost-effective and efficient way to achieve desired social and developmental results, all while promoting Latin America as a global investment hub.

This article was authored by Ana Carolina Salomao, Founder of Montgomery, Micaela Ossio, Solicitor in England & Wales and Peruvian Attorney, Jessica Pineda, Legal Director at Pogust Goodhead, and Diego Saco Hatchwell, Partner at GCS Abogados.

[1]           ICC Dispute Resolution 2023 Statistics

[2]           According to some experts in the field the two main factors that have brought this new market to the attention of institutional investors, have been the transfer of distressed debts from banks to private investment funds following the 2008 recession, and the search for higher yields in traditional financial markets. As banks recovered from the financial crisis and opportunities for distressed debt diminished, these private funds began to explore arbitration awards as alternative investments, recognizing their similarities to bank loans. While arbitration awards are often sold at a discount, sellers are not necessarily distressed; they simply find it commercially sensible to transfer the collection process. To know more about this topic, watch the 6ta. Edición de Open Arbitraje 2020 denominada “Mesa Allen & Overy: Acquisition of awards: Market trends and challenges.”

[3]           Although buying the entire award may be appealing to claimants in need of immediate cash, experts suggest that funders often prefer maintaining a relationship with the award holders or ensuring that the claimant remains involved in the process. Award holders typically possess valuable knowledge about the respondent, which can be beneficial for recovery efforts.

[4]           In some civil law jurisdictions, the concept of retrait litigieux can be an impediment to a monetization agreement.

[5] https://clp.law.harvard.edu/knowledge-hub/magazine/issues/litigation-finance/investing-in-legal-futures/

[6] https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2023year-endreport.pdf

[7] https://www.google.com/search?q=black+rock+investment+in+litigation+finance&sca_esv=969c9be58d3ff7ea&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS837US837&sxsrf=ADLYWILynJMXdzxuFUmHYgDQCWx3Veqb0g%3A1729807553471&ei=wcQaZ663HJ2dptQP48yI-Ac&ved=0ahUKEwjum4Smg6iJAxWdjokEHWMmAn8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=black+rock+investment+in+litigation+finance&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiK2JsYWNrIHJvY2sgaW52ZXN0bWVudCBpbiBsaXRpZ2F0aW9uIGZpbmFuY2UyBxAhGKABGApIkBdQmARYtBZwAngAkAEBmAH7AqAB5haqAQc5LjguMy4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIUoALQE8ICCxAAGIAEGLADGKIEwgIEECEYFcICBRAhGJ8FwgIIEAAYgAQYogTCAgoQABiABBgKGMsBwgIIEAAYFhgKGB7CAgoQABgWGAoYHhgPwgIOEC4Y0QMYFhjHARgKGB7CAgYQABgWGB7CAgUQIRigAZgDAOIDBRIBMSBAiAYBkAYEkgcIMTEuNi4yLjGgB79e&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

[8] https://www.pm-research.com/highwire_display/entity_view/node/167885/content_tabs#:~:text=Litigation%20finance%20is%20a%20rapidly,correlation%20to%20other%20investment%20areas.

[9] https://www.deminor.com/en/litigation-funding/what-is-litigation-funding/

[10] The Supreme Court in PACCAR Ltd v. (1) W.A. Bailey (Properties) Ltd & (2) C. Robert Wright & Sons Ltd clarified that litigation funding agreements should be treated similarly to damages-based agreements, influencing the regulatory framework for litigation funding in the UK; however, this ruling is expected to be revisited with the introduction of the forthcoming Litigation Funding Bill, which aims to reverse this classification.

[11] Voss, H. (2020). Report on the financing of litigation and the role of litigation funding in the EU. European Parliament

[12] See https://www.newyorkconvention.org/text

[13] Born, G. B. (2014). International Commercial Arbitration. 2nd ed. Kluwer Law International. Pages 473-510

[14] See https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/403/crystallex-v-venezuela

[15] See https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/483/rusoro-mining-v-venezuela

[16] See https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/245/conocophillips-v-venezuela

[17] See https://www.pwc.co.uk/forensic-services/assets/documents/trends-in-international-arbitration-damages-awards.pdf

[18] “How Litigation Finance Works” by Bloomberg Law. https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/litigation/how-litigation-finance-works/

[19] The Justice Case for Litigation Funding by M. Todd Henderson

[20]         This is the case of the “Camera de Comercio Brasil – Canada” (CAMCCBC)

[21] According to the Colombian Commercial Code (Article 884), interest rates exceeding the legal limit are considered usurious and illegal. The usury rate is set quarterly by the Superintendencia Financiera de Colombia (Financial Superintendency of Colombia), which establishes the rate at 1.5 times the current banking interest rate, based on average rates charged by financial institutions.

[22]         Pro-enforcement policies in such countries have been pivotal in shaping favorable legal environments for arbitration awards enforcement. For instance, the Cayman Islands has demonstrated strong pro-enforcement tendencies through case law like Gol Linhas Aereas S.A. v MatlinPatterson Global Opportunities Partners (Cayman) II LP, where the court affirmed its commitment to enforcing arbitration awards in line with the New York Convention in 2022. Similarly, Bermuda has shown a similar approach, particularly in cases such as La Générale des Carrières et des Mines v F.G. Hemisphere Associates LLC (2012), which underscored Bermuda’s adherence to the New York Convention and support for arbitration proceedings.

About the author

Micaela Ossio

Micaela Ossio

Micaela Ossio is a Solicitor in England & Wales, and a Peruvian Attorney.



About the author

Ana Carolina Salomao

Ana Carolina Salomao



About the author

Diego Saco

Diego Saco

Law Firm Corner

View All
Commercial Law Firm Corner Special Features Thought Leadership

Should Courts Encourage Litigation Funding?

By Ken Rosen |

The following was contributed by Ken Rosen Esq, Founder of Ken Rosen P.C. Ken is a frequent contributor to legal journals on current topics of interest to the bankruptcy and restructuring industry.

In many Chapter 11 cases, the debtor’s estate holds valuable litigation claims, which can be a key source of recovery. However, pursuing these claims can be daunting when the defendant has substantially greater financial resources. Well-funded defendants may use aggressive litigation tactics to exploit the estate’s limited means.

Unsecured creditors, often receiving only token recoveries, may be hesitant to approve further legal spending. Debtor’s counsel, wary of nonpayment if litigation fails, may also be reluctant to pursue claims. Contingency fee arrangements can reduce estate risk, but they shift risk to counsel—particularly when facing a resource-rich defendant.

To gain creditor support, more than the committee counsel’s confidence may be needed. Litigation funding can bridge the gap. It provides capital to pursue claims without draining estate resources, helping to fulfill Chapter 11’s core goals: preserving going concern value and maximizing creditor recovery, as recognized by the Supreme Court.

Litigation funding is especially valuable when the estate lacks liquidity. It enables the debtor to pursue meritorious claims against stronger opponents, discouraging defense strategies aimed at exhausting the plaintiff through expensive discovery and motion practice.

The Funder’s Evaluation Process:

  1. Legal Merits – Assessing the strength of claims based on facts, evidence, and precedent.
  2. Recovery Potential – Estimating damages or settlement value to ensure adequate return.
  3. Litigation Costs – Forecasting expenses to trial or resolution.
  4. Risk Analysis – Evaluating the defendant’s ability to pay, jurisdictional issues, and delays.
  5. Independent Review –Funders conduct rigorous due diligence before committing capital.

A funder’s involvement serves as a “second opinion” validating the case. Their willingness to invest can bolster confidence in the claim’s merits and justify some estate contribution. It can serve as a soft endorsement of the litigation’s potential value. When a party seeks authorization for litigation funding it should be viewed by the Bankruptcy Court as weighing in favor of approval.

Whether or not funding is obtained, the terms of any arrangement should be redacted/sealed and remain confidential—shared only with the Court and key constituent counsel. The rationale for proceeding without funding should likewise remain undisclosed. Keeping defense counsel in the dark preserves strategic advantage.

Conclusion:

Litigation funding can be a powerful tool for Chapter 11 estates, enabling pursuit of valuable claims, minimizing financial strain, and supporting reorganization efforts. This strategy aligns with Chapter 11’s purpose and can significantly enhance the likelihood of a successful outcome. Key constituents and the court should recognize that.

Commercial Law Firm Corner

Litigation Funding – Section 107 Needs Amending

By Ken Rosen |

The following was contributed by Ken Rosen Esq, Founder of Ken Rosen P.C. Ken is a frequent contributor to legal journals on current topics of interest to the bankruptcy and restructuring industry.

The necessity of disclosing litigation funding remains contentious. In October 2024, the federal judiciary’s rules committee decided to create a litigation finance subcommittee after 125 big companies argued that transparency of litigation funding is needed. 

Is there a problem in need of a fix?

Concerns include (a) Undisclosed funding may lead to unfair advantages in litigation. Allegedly if one party is backed by significant financial resources, it could affect the dynamics of the case. (b) Potential conflicts of interest may arise from litigation funding arrangements. Parties and the court may question whether funders could exert influence over the litigation process or settlement decisions, which could compromise the integrity of the judicial process. (c) The presence of litigation funding can alter the strategy of both parties in negotiations. Judges may be concerned that funders might push for excessive settlements or prolong litigation to maximize their returns. While litigation funding can enhance access to justice for under-resourced plaintiffs, judges may also be wary of the potential for exploitative practices where funders prioritize profit over the plaintiffs' best interests.

A litigant’s financial wherewithal is irrelevant. A litigant’s balance sheet also addresses financial resources and the strength of one’s balance sheet may affect the dynamics of the litigation but there is no rationale for a new rule that a litigant’s balance sheet be disclosed. What matters is the law and the facts. Disclosure of litigation funding is a basis on which to argue that anything offered in settlement by the funded litigant is unreasonable and to blame it on litigation funding. 

Ethics rules

The concerns about litigation funding are adequately dealt with by The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as various state ethical rules and state bar associations. An attorney's obligation is to act in the best interests of their client. Among other things, attorneys must (a) adhere to the law and ethical standards, ensuring that their actions do not undermine the integrity of the legal system, (b)  avoid conflicts of interest and should not represent clients whose interests are directly adverse to those of another client without informed consent, (c) fully explain to clients potential risks and implications of various options and (d) explain matters to the extent necessary for clients to make informed decisions. 

These rules are designed to ensure that attorneys act in the best interests of their clients while maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and the justice system. Violations of these ethical obligations can result in disciplinary action, including disbarment, sanctions, or reprimand. Disclosure of litigation funding is unnecessary because the ethics rules adequately govern an attorney’s behavior and their obligations to the court. New rules to enforce existing rules are redundant and unnecessary. Plus, disclosure of litigation funding can be damaging to the value of a litigation claim.

Value maximization and preservation

Preserving and enhancing the value of the estate are critical considerations in a Chapter 11 case. Preservation and enhancement are fundamental to the successful reorganization, as they directly impact the recovery available to creditors and the feasibility of the debtor's reorganization efforts. Often, a litigation claim is a valuable estate asset. A Chapter 11 debtor may seek DIP financing in the form of litigation funding when it faces financial distress that could impede its ability to pursue valuable litigation. However, disclosure of litigation funding- like disclosure of a balance sheet in a non-bankruptcy case- can devalue the litigation asset if it impacts an adversary’s case strategy and dynamics.

The ”364” process

In bankruptcy there is an additional problem. Section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth the conditions under which litigation funding – a form of “DIP” financing- may be approved by the court. 

When a Chapter 11 debtor seeks DIP financing, several disclosures are made. Some key elements of DIP financing that customarily are disclosed include (a) Why DIP financing is necessary. (b) The specific terms of the DIP financing, including the amount, interest rate, fees, and repayment terms. (c) What assets will secure DIP financing and the priority of the DIP lender's claims. (d) How DIP financing will affect existing creditors. (e) How the proposed DIP financing complies with relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. 

Litigation funding in a bankruptcy case requires full disclosure of all substantive terms and conditions of the funding- more than just whether litigation funding exists and whether the funder has control in the case. Parties being sued by the debtor seek to understand the terms of the debtor’s litigation funding to gauge the debtor’s capability to sustain litigation and to formulate their own case strategy.

Section 107 needs revision

Subsection (a) of section 107 provides that except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and subject to section 112, a paper filed in a case and on the docket are public records. Subsection (b) (1) provides thaton request of a party in interest, the bankruptcy court shall protect an entity with respect to a trade secret or confidential research, development, or commercial information.Applications for relief that involve commercial information are candidates for sealing or redaction by the bankruptcy court. 

But the Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly define "commercial information." 

The interpretation of "commercial information" has been developed through case law. For instance, in In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d at 27, the Second Circuit defined "commercial information" as information that would cause an unfair advantage to competitors.” This definition has been applied in various cases to include information that could harm or give competitors an unfair advantage, and it has been held to include information that, if publicly disclosed, would adversely affect the conduct of the bankruptcy case. (In re Purdue Pharma LP, SDNY 2021). In such instances allowing public disclosure also would diminish the value of the bankruptcy estate. (In re A.G. Financial Service Center, Inc.395 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2005)). 

Additionally, courts have held that "commercial information" need not rise to the level of a trade secret to qualify for protection under section 107(b), but it must be so critical to the operations of the entity seeking the protective order that its disclosure will unfairly benefit the entity's competitors. (In re Barney’s, Inc., 201 B.R. 703, 708–09 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d at 28)). 

Knowledge of litigation funding and, especially, the terms and conditions of the funding can give an adversary a distinct advantage. In effect the adverse party is a “competitor” of the debtor. They pull at opposite ends of the same rope. Furthermore, disclosure would adversely affect the conduct of the case- which should be defined to include diminution of the value of the litigation claim. 

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure should be amended to clarify that information in an application for litigation funding may, subject to approval by the bankruptcy court, be deemed “confidential information” subject to sealing or redaction if the court authorizes it.

Conclusion

A new rule requiring disclosure of litigation funding is unnecessary and can damage the value of a litigation claim. If the rules committee nevertheless recommend disclosure there should be a carve out for bankruptcy cases specifically enabling bankruptcy judges to authorize redaction or sealing pleadings related to litigation funding. 

Commercial Law Firm Corner Legal Innovation Thought Leadership

How WFH Communication is Impacting Law Firms and Legal Funders

By Kris Altiere |

The following article was contributed by Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing for Moneypenny.

The boundaries between professional and personal life have blurred, largely due to technology and the pandemic, which forced firms to be available 24/7. Since COVID, the number of clients and prospects engaging with businesses at all hours has surged, driven by the adoption of tools like live chat—which, at one point, accounted for 37% of interactions outside traditional 9-to-5 hours. In fact, a Moneypenny study conducted with Censuswide, surveying over 2,000 U.S. consumers, found that 58% of respondents now accept work-related communications outside regular hours. But is this shift a good thing?

Law firms should consider the communication training they give across all situations – how many work calls have been taken in the car, texts responded to at a soccer practice, or emails replied to quickly while at the doctor? Adjusting a firm’s contact channels should include recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of different forms of communication, and thinking about what’s best for clients and the team.

For firms, the “always on” employee presents some potential challenges, starting with the impact on the mental health of someone pressured to forever be on alert for a client or new business. It also can present vulnerabilities – Moneypenny’s research revealed 59% of respondents admitted to commonly sending texts and emails to the wrong person. Or, there is the liability of a stretched team responding to a client with a typo or incorrect information, feeling pressured to get right back and not taken time for a measured response. Along with an increased margin of error, digital communication can lack the emotion of a conversation, or may not appeal as a form of connection from a generational perspective.

Moneypenny looked into the popularity of different forms of work communications. Emails were number one at 49%, followed by the phone at 39%, text messaging at 35%, instant messaging such as Teams or Slack at 19%, and video conferencing like Zoom at 18%. Choices were particular to generations – emailing is the preferred choice for 56% of Baby Boomers and 54% of Gen X, while only 28% of Gen Z prefer it. Instant messaging was a more popular form of work communication for Gen Z (25%), but was chosen by only 16% of Gen X and 13% of Baby Boomers.

Moneypenny encourages firms of all sizes to establish clear communication guidelines that best serve all of their constituents – their teams, their prospects, and their clients. After four years of being on call around the clock, teams are tired. If a firm can have the burden of the 2 a.m. call or chat placed in the hands of a capable and trained legal receptionist like Moneypenny’s, they can ensure it’s not just fielded, but fielded well, and their team undisturbed.

Setting healthy business-life boundaries is a lofty goal that firms should consider setting this year – making themselves a little more unavailable to make themself more available. Fielding a call late at night or during a mad rush does a disservice by potentially inhibiting work flow, mental health, quality and integrity of the work. In what seems like an increasingly scattered world, reclaiming focus by letting someone else “get the phone” could just be revolutionary.

--

Kris Altiere is US Head of Marketing at Moneypenny. Moneypenny’s unique blend of brilliant people and AI technology integrate seamlessly to deliver customer conversations that unlock valuable opportunities for law firms, 24/7.

Kris is passionate about combining creativity and data-driven approaches to deliver impactful campaigns. A natural leader and mentor, she thrives on empowering teams, fostering collaboration, and ensuring Moneypenny’s solutions help firms stay ahead in an ever-evolving market.