Trending Now
Commercial Funder's Corner

Unleashing the Potential of Outsourcing

By Richard Culberson |
October 24, 2024

Unleashing the Potential of Outsourcing

The following article was contributed by Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America.

Every leader knows the importance of maximizing the potential of their people, clients, and business. It’s about recognizing the value of your resources and optimizing their efficiency. This can be achieved by streamlining, leveraging technology, and investing in people, however, one solution that is gaining momentum in the legal world is outsourcing.  

Traditionally, businesses used outsourcing to save money by obtaining help with non-essential administrative tasks, thereby avoiding the costs of hiring and training employees and purchasing equipment and it’s been proven to be an effective way to control expenses. 

However, today, Outsourcing 2.0 is more than just a cost-saving measure. It is about collaborating to grow, thrive and maximize value.  

Take the humble phone call as an example. Whether it is a new inquiry or an existing client, every call is important and ensuring that they are answered, and opportunities are never missed is particularly crucial for law firms, whatever their size. On average one in 10 calls to a law firm is from someone making a new inquiry. If they go unanswered that is business lost, or worse, it is business that goes to the competition.  

Outsourcing your calls could help you never miss a call, avoid interruptions, and support business continuity. For example, it can allow your firm to operate seamlessly, whether it is a busy day in court, meetings, an office move, or a holiday. Furthermore, it should be able to work as a faultless extension of your business, so that no one knows you have a partner to answer your calls, for example.  

The same goes for other functions. Marketing and IT tasks can take away time that attorneys could be spending on billable hours. Just like you would hire an expert in a field that is out of your legal realm, outsourcing can support law firms to save valuable time, manage overflow, reduce costs, improve the litigation process, and allow employees to focus on key tasks. 

As a business leader, you understand your business’s strengths and areas where it needs support better than anyone else, so it is logical to look at ways you can focus on these strengths and seek assistance for other aspects.  Especially when you consider the tangible benefits that outsourcing can deliver to businesses, all while making financial sense. The key is finding the right partner. 

So, how can you ensure that outsourcing works for your business? 

Outsourcing will only work in the long term if both parties approach it as a partnership. It’s all about collaboration. With commitment and effective communication from both sides, long-term success can be achieved, however, it does require investment of time to get it right; treating it as a one-time deal will limit its potential. 

So, it’s all about finding your perfect partner, one that aligns well with your business, not only in terms of skills and experience, but also in terms of culture and values. This requires thorough research and careful evaluation. 

There is no doubt that outsourcing can help you to unleash your law firm’s potential by allowing you to focus on your core competencies while delegating other activities to external experts. This can lead to increased efficiency, cost savings, and access to specialized skills and resources that may not be available in-house freeing up time and resources to drive growth and also provide the flexibility to scale operations up or down based on business needs, making it a powerful tool for unlocking and maximizing a company’s potential. 

But you must approach it with the right attitude if you want to unleash the potential of your people and your business. Getting the right partnership and outsourcing can serve as a strategic tool to help law firms reach new heights of success in 2025 and beyond. 

Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America, a global leader in outsourced call answering, live chat, receptionist teams and customer service solutions for business large and small, handling over 20 million calls and chats for thousands of organizations. Moneypenny has an award-winning culture, with over 1,250 people across the US and UK. At the centre of this culture is a vision that if you combine awesome people with leading-edge technology, you will supercharge your people and your business, delivering gold standard customer experience and service. Richard is passionate about building teams that leverage new business models and technologies, driving growth and scaling business.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Richard Culberson

Richard Culberson

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bloomberg Law Cites Legal Funding Journal Podcast in Commentary on Funder Transparency

By John Freund |

A recent episode of the Legal Funding Journal podcast was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article on funder control of cases. In the episode, Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet, discussed the thorny topic this way: “What do funders care about? They certainly do care about settlements and that should be recognized. They do care about who is the legal counsel and that should be recognized. They care about the way the case is being run. They care about discontinuing the legal action and they care about wider matters affecting the funder.”

The provocative new commentary from Bloomberg Law reignites the longstanding debate over transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF), asserting that many funders exercise considerable control over litigation outcomes—despite public disavowals to the contrary.

In the article, Alex Dahl of Lawyers for Civil Justice argues that recent contract analyses expose mechanisms by which funders can shape or even override key litigation decisions, including settlement approval, counsel selection, and pursuit of injunctive relief. The piece singles out Burford Capital, the sector’s largest player, highlighting its 2022 bid to block a client’s settlement in the high-profile Sysco antitrust matter, even as it publicly claimed to be a passive investor. Such contradictions, Dahl contends, underscore a pressing need for mandatory disclosure of litigation funding arrangements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The analysis points to contracts that allegedly allow funders to halt cash flow mid-litigation, demand access to all documents—including sensitive or protected materials—and require plaintiffs to pay sanctions regardless of who caused the misconduct. Courts and opposing parties are typically blind to these provisions, as the agreements are often shielded from disclosure.

While funders like Burford maintain that control provisions are invoked only in “extraordinary circumstances,” Dahl’s article ends with a call for judicial mandates requiring transparency, likening funder involvement to insurers, who must disclose coverage under current civil rules.

For legal funders, the takeaway is clear: scrutiny is intensifying. As the industry matures and high-profile disputes mount, the push for standardized disclosure rules may accelerate. The central question ahead—how to balance transparency with funder confidentiality—remains a defining challenge for the sector.

Case Developments Commercial

Siltstone vs. Walia Dispute Moves to Arbitration

By John Freund |

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.

Case Developments Commercial

ASB Agrees to NZ$135.6M Settlement in Banking Class Action

By John Freund |

ASB has confirmed it will pay NZ$135,625,000 to resolve the Banking Class Action focused on alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), subject to approval by the High Court. The settlement was announced October 7, 2025, but ASB did not admit liability as part of the deal.

1News reports that the class action—covering both ASB and ANZ customers—alleges that the banks failed to provide proper disclosure to borrowers during loan variations. As a result, during periods of non‑compliance, customers claim the banks were not entitled to collect interest and fees (under CCCFA sections 22, 99, and 48).

The litigation has been jointly funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF Group (New Zealand). The parallel claim against ANZ remains active and is not part of ASB’s settlement.

Prior to this announcement, plaintiffs had publicly floated a more ambitious settlement in the NZ$300m+ range, which both ASB and ANZ had rejected—labeling it a “stunt” or political gambit tied to ongoing legislative changes to CCCFA.

Legal and regulatory observers see this deal as a strategic move by ASB: it caps its exposure and limits litigation risk without conceding wrongdoing, while leaving open the possibility of continued proceedings against ANZ. The arrangement still requires High Court consent before going ahead.