$206M
Outside counsel spend FY27 YTD
6.3% over plan · plan $194M
$28M
In-house legal cost · 84 FTE
12% of total legal cost
1,526
Open matters
182 older than 12 months
$742
Blended billed rate per hour
+5.3% YoY · rate +$37 · mix +$26
$7.2M
Guideline recoveries YTD, reconciled
est. $3.7M still leaking
$364K
Billed by unapproved timekeepers this quarter
4 timekeepers · held
The write-down is the wrong trophy
Invoice adjustment rate ranks Durand Ferris first; cost to award at equal award ratio ranks it last.Adjustment rate · ignore for firm choice
Durand Ferris
4%
Calloway Reid
6%
Marrick Stone
7%
Brennan Ostrom
8%
Cost to award vs cohort · the sort
Marrick Stone
−11%
Brennan Ostrom
−4%
Calloway Reid
+2%
Durand Ferris
+27%
Cheapest on the bill, most expensive to award. Durand Ferris runs every arbitration to award with local counsel marked up; Marrick Stone settles before the hearing at the same award ratio. The move: Model moving Gulf Coast air-permit work to Vestmark Legal and enforcing local-counsel-at-cost on Angola — $0.9M + $0.4M expected saving; Calloway Reid keeps FERC filings where it ranks first. Open regulatory portfolio.
YTD spend by matter type
Bar = spend · tick = plan · red = more than 8% over planRegulatory & permitting
$61M / $58M
Disputes & arbitration
$44M / $40M
Commercial · JV & supply
$29M / $27M
Environmental & HSE
$18M / $19M
Employment
$6.2M / $6.0M
Property & land access
$9.1M / $8.5M
Corporate / M&A
$31M / $28M
Trading · ISDA & commodity
$7.4M / $7.0M
How this is computed
DefinitionSum of paid invoice lines by the matter's type in the taxonomy (one type per matter, set at intake, reviewed by the classifier); plan from the approved budget by type.Sourcesinvoice_line · matter · budget (TeamConnect, AP feed)Coverage · n1,526 open + closed matters with FY27 spend · 100% typedFreshnessnightly; AP reconciliation daily
Open matters by type, stage and age
IntakeEarlyMidLateClosingRegulatory & permitting
212
Disputes & arbitration
38
Commercial · JV & supply
640
Environmental & HSE
72
Employment
58
Property & land access
310
Corporate / M&A
6
Trading · ISDA & commodity
190
| Type | Open | < 90 d | 90–180 | 180–365 | > 365 d | Median age |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory & permitting | 212 | 25 | 38 | 72 | 76 | 330 d |
| Disputes & arbitration | 38 | 5 | 7 | 13 | 14 | 560 d |
| Commercial · JV & supply | 640 | 352 | 179 | 90 | 19 | 90 d |
| Environmental & HSE | 72 | 14 | 19 | 23 | 16 | 290 d |
| Employment | 58 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 13 | 210 d |
| Property & land access | 310 | 99 | 93 | 81 | 37 | 180 d |
| Corporate / M&A | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 150 d |
| Trading · ISDA & commodity | 190 | 105 | 53 | 27 | 6 | 40 d |
How this is computed
DefinitionStage from the matter's phase (UTBMS phase of the latest billed work, or the matter-system status where it is maintained); age = today − opened date.Sourcesmatter, invoice_line phase codes (TeamConnect)Coverage · n1,526 open matters · stage known for 96%Freshnessnightly
Blended rates, variance and staffing mix
Billed rates by level, this year vs last, against the panel market median| Level | Last year | This year | Market median | Hours share | Benchmark share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partner | $980 | $1,038 | $1,005 | 34% | 27% |
| Counsel | $820 | $858 | $835 | 9% | 10% |
| Sr associate | $660 | $694 | $680 | 24% | 27% |
| Associate | $490 | $512 | $505 | 23% | 26% |
| Paralegal | $260 | $271 | $265 | 10% | 10% |
Variance decomposition. Blended rate $704 → $742: +$37 from rate increases at constant mix and +$26 from a heavier senior mix than the benchmark. The mix effect is the negotiable one.
Associate-level work done by partners. 4,100 partner hours this year on tasks the classifier codes as associate-level (document review, first drafts, research): premium of $2.2M over the associate rate. Staffing rule OCG-3.x flags it; 61% is already appealed or waived.
How this is computed
DefinitionBlended rate = hours-weighted billed rate per level after reductions; market median from the consented benchmark pool (same level, geography, matter type); hours share vs the benchmark staffing mix for the same matter mix. Task level from the narrative classifier (method and confidence stored per line).Sourcesinvoice_line, timekeeper, benchmark_pool, classifier outputCoverage · nall paid lines YTD · level known for 99% of hoursFreshnessnightly; benchmark pool quarterly
Rate creep · three years
Top-3 firms by spend vs the rest of the panel vs CPI, same-timekeeper chained index| Dimension | Top-3 firms | Rest of panel | CPI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Partner | +15.1% | +7.8% | +8.3% |
| Sr associate | +13.6% | +7.2% | +8.3% |
| Associate | +11.0% | +6.6% | +8.3% |
| Houston | +16.4% | +8.1% | +8.3% |
| London | +13.0% | +7.3% | +8.3% |
| Perth | +10.2% | +6.0% | +8.3% |
| Luanda (local) | +24.0% | +11.0% | +8.3% |
Chained by timekeeper: the index follows the same people year to year, so promotions and office moves do not masquerade as rate rises. Senior-associate creep at the top firms is the fastest-compounding line.
How this is computed
DefinitionHours-weighted billed-rate index 2024 → 2026, chained within timekeeper; approved rate-card versions used to separate negotiated increases from off-card billing.Sourcesinvoice_line, timekeeper, rate_card_versionCoverage · n88% of hours chainable (timekeepers billing in consecutive years)Freshnessnightly
Actual cost against alternative fee arrangements
Shadow bill (hours × standard rates) vs the agreed fee · tells you whether the AFA is priced right| Arrangement | Fee billed | Shadow bill | Variance | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Routine environmental filings · fixed $18K Fixed fee per unit · 144 units | $2.6M | $2.8M | +$250K (+10%) | Shadow bill above fee |
| Local counsel at cost · Angola Pass-through at cost · 9 units | $2.1M | $2.8M | +$700K (+33%) | Shadow bill above fee |
| Land access agreements · $4.2K per parcel Fixed fee per unit · 310 units | $1.3M | $1.4M | +$60K (+5%) | Within collar |
| Arbitration · phase budgets with 10% collar Phased budget · 38 units | $44M | $47M | +$3.1M (+7%) | Within collar |
A shadow bill well above the fee means the firm is absorbing cost (renegotiation risk, or scope creep by you); well below means the fee is rich. Both are negotiation inputs, not savings.
How this is computed
DefinitionFee billed from AFA invoices; shadow bill from the firm's hours at approved standard rates (firms submit hours under the AFA terms); units from the matter record.Sourcesafa_agreement, invoice_line (fee + shadow hours), matterCoverage · n4 arrangements · shadow hours submitted on 94% of AFA invoicesFreshnessmonthly on invoice
Unapproved timekeepers
Billing without an approved rate or staffing approval · lines held, not paid| Timekeeper | Hours | Billed | First seen | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Ferreira Durand Ferris · Partner | 92 h | $87,400 | 4 Jul | Held |
| Local counsel (Luanda) via Durand Ferris Durand Ferris · Local counsel | 380 h | $171,000 | 4 Jul | Held |
| D. Clarke Calloway Reid · Sr associate | 66 h | $42,900 | 17 Aug | Held |
| Expert support (contract) Brennan Ostrom · Consultant | 210 h | $63,000 | 6 Sep | Held |
Approve adds the timekeeper to the approved list with a rate from the card; reject returns the lines to the firm with reason code OCG-1.4. Either way the decision is recorded against the firm's relationship profile.
How this is computed
DefinitionTimekeeper on a billed line not present in the approved-timekeeper list for the matter (or pool approval), or billing above the approved rate; new timekeepers are held at first appearance.Sourcesinvoice_line, timekeeper, approved_timekeeper, rate_card_versionCoverage · n4 timekeepers · $364K held this quarterFreshnesson invoice receipt
Firm efficiency index
100 = comparable cohort · below is better · same matter mix, same outcome band| Firm | Hours per matter vs cohort | Partner share | Write-down rate | Cycle vs cohort | Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marrick Stone | 0.88× | 22% | 4% | 0.92× | 89 |
| Halbrook Teague | 0.94× | 27% | 5% | 0.96× | 97 |
| Vestmark Legal | 1.03× | 30% | 7% | 1.02× | 104 |
| Hartline Pike | 1.08× | 34% | 8% | 1.06× | 111 |
| Durand Ferris | 1.31× | 41% | 11% | 1.18× | 130 |
Index = 0.45 × hours ratio + 0.25 × partner-share ratio + 0.15 × (1 + write-down rate) + 0.15 × cycle ratio. Inefficiency is excess hours and seniority at equal outcome, not a low write-down (see the trophy chart on the home screen).
How this is computed
DefinitionEach firm's matters matched to a comparable cohort (type, venue, stakes band, stage) with a minimum of 20; ratios are firm median ÷ cohort median; outcome band held constant.Sourcesmatter, invoice_line, cohort, outcome, timekeeperCoverage · n5 firms with n ≥ 20 matched matters · others abstainedFreshnessnightly; cohorts refreshed weekly
Billing guideline leakage
Recovered, reconciledRestored on appealIn processLeaked · unflagged (audit sample)Rate and timekeeper rules
$2.6M / $700K
Block billing and vague entries
$1.6M / $1.2M
Staffing and local counsel markup
$1.5M / $1.1M
Expenses and disbursements
$800K / $300K
Pre-approval
$700K / $400K
Flagged YTD
$9.6M
Recovered, reconciled
$7.2M
Leaked · unflagged estimate
$3.7M
Leakage is what the rules did not catch: estimated from a monthly specialist audit of a random 2% sample of auto-approved lines, extrapolated with a confidence interval. Block billing and staffing rules leak most; the fix is enforcement level (advise → specialist → auto) and rule precision, both set in Guidelines.
How this is computed
DefinitionFlagged = findings applied; recovered = reductions reconciled to payment net of reversals (ledger); restored = appeal reversals; leaked = audit-sample estimate of non-compliant amounts on unflagged lines, per rule family.Sourcesfinding, ledger_entry, appeal, audit_sampleCoverage · nall invoices YTD · audit sample 2% monthly (n ≈ 1,400 lines)Freshnessledger daily; audit monthly
Insourcing opportunities · recurring, high-volume work
Outside cost vs loaded in-house cost at the volume observed| Work type | Units / yr | Outside cost per unit | Outside spend | FTE needed | Net saving |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Routine NDAs and confidentiality undertakings Template + CLM self-service | 1,100 | $1,300 | $1.4M | 1.4 | $1.1M |
| Standard land access and easement agreements In-house land team + template | 310 | $4,200 | $1.3M | 1.3 | $1.0M |
| Routine environmental compliance filings In-house HSE legal + fixed-fee overflow | 144 | $18,000 | $2.6M | 2.6 | $2.0M |
| Supply contract renewals (standard terms) In-house commercial team | 420 | $2,600 | $1.1M | 1.1 | $861K |
$5.1M net annual saving if all four are insourced at a loaded cost of $210K per FTE, before recruiting lag. Candidates qualify on three tests: volume above 100 units a year, coefficient of variation of unit cost below 0.3 (the work is repeatable), and outside unit cost above 1.8× in-house. Everything else stays with the panel.
How this is computed
DefinitionUnits and unit cost from matters tagged routine by work type; FTE needed = units × median in-house hours per unit ÷ 1,600 productive hours; net saving = outside spend − FTE × loaded cost.Sourcesmatter, work_type, invoice_line, inhouse_cost_model (FTE register)Coverage · n4 work types pass all three testsFreshnessquarterly
Repeat players
Counterparties, opposing counsel and intermediaries that recur across matters| Party | Matters (36 mo) | Spend | Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contractor group · EPC claims (2 entities) Counterparty | 11 | $19M | Settled 7 · award 2 · 610 d |
| Environmental NGO coalition Objector | 14 | $6.1M | Comment periods extended 9 of 14 |
| State regulator · air permits Regulator | 24 | $9.8M | Time to grant 14.2 mo |
| JV partner · Block 31 Counterparty | 9 | $2.1M | Local-content disputes 3 |
Repeat players are where upstream fixes pay: a template clause, a settlement protocol, a panel-firm playbook or a supplier conversation changes the next twenty matters, not the next invoice.
How this is computed
DefinitionParties resolved to a master entity (name matching + registry ids) across matter_party; counted where the same entity appears on 3 or more matters in 36 months.Sourcesmatter_party, party_master, invoice_line, outcomeCoverage · nentity resolution confidence ≥ 0.9 on 92% of parties; the rest listed unresolvedFreshnessweekly
Moves on the table
Open units ordered by the move, not by invoice size · each has an owner, a due date and a follow-up observation| Move | Owner | Due | Evidence | Observed later |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authorize settlement approach on 3 JV arbitrations Amount in dispute $45–120M; spend above 4% pre-hearing | Head of disputes · JV commercial lead | 9 Oct | Cohort n=42 · 0.62× claim p50 | Award or settlement vs claim |
| Approve routing rule: Gulf Coast permit matters to Marrick Stone and Halbrook Teague Capacity and conflicts to confirm | Panel owner | 15 Oct | Cohort n=70/96 · p20–p80 shown | Cost per closed matter, 2 quarters |
| Fund or accept the $4.8M FY28 gap After $6.5M of modeled actions | General counsel · CFO | 31 Oct | Variance decomposition | Quarterly reforecast |
A saved scenario is not a decision; nothing here has a button until someone accepts the move. The month-18 metric is the share of moves followed and what those units then cost against their cohort.
How this is computed
DefinitionDecision records (F7.6): typed move with owner, due date, authority, evidence snapshot and a later observation (followed? cost vs cohort?).Sourcesdecision_record, matter, cohortCoverage · n3 open movesFreshnesslive
Where intelligence declined
Shown, not hidden: a refused comparison is a featureEPC arbitration · Gulf Coast delay claim
Declined: One-off: no comparable arbitration above $50M in client history (n = 3)
Falls back to: Hearing plan and phase budget; expert budget capped by instruction
Angola Block 31 · local-content filings
Declined: No peer class for the regulator; pool has no Angola data
Falls back to: Local counsel at cost, rate card, monthly scope review
Firm ranking · offshore wind licences
Declined: New permit class: cohort n = 4
Falls back to: Assign by guideline; re-checked as filings close
Below the floor the screen says so and the file falls back to guidelines, the rate card and a phase budget. Buyers trust a system that declines more than one that always ranks.
How this is computed
DefinitionAbstain state (F6.6): cohort ladder exhausted (exact → drop stage → drop venue → coverage only) with n still below the pack minimum, dispersion check failed, or as-of date stale; every abstention is logged and counted.Sourcescohort, decision_recordCoverage · n3 abstentions open this monthFreshnessnightly
Discovery cost drivers
$17M of discovery / investigation spend YTD by component · driver metric vs comparable cohortDocument production (firm)
$6.2M
hours per 1,000 docs: 13.1 · cohort 10.4 · +26%
Technical experts (delay, quantum)
$4.8M
experts per arbitration: 4.2 · cohort 3.0 · +40%
E-discovery and project records
$3.1M
GB per arbitration: 910 · cohort 540 · +69%
Witness statements and hearings
$2.3M
witnesses: 11 · cohort 8 · +38%
Translation (local filings)
$800K
pages: 14K · cohort 9K · +56%
The driver metrics are what to negotiate: review hours per thousand documents (technology-assisted review, staffing), data volume processed (custodian scoping, early case assessment), and expert count. Rates explain less than a fifth of the variance here.
How this is computed
DefinitionDiscovery spend = UTBMS L300 lines plus e-discovery vendor invoices and expert disbursements mapped to the matter; driver metrics from vendor invoices (GB, documents) and timekeeper narratives (hours per document batch).Sourcesinvoice_line (L300, E-codes), vendor_invoice, matter, cohortCoverage · nall arbitrations with discovery spend YTD · vendor data on 81%Freshnessnightly
How this view is governed
Why the numbers can be trusted- One metric catalogue. Every tile reads a named metric with a published definition, grain and allowed filters. The dashboard and Ask Spend use the same catalogue, so a question and a tile never disagree.
- Coverage before value. Each metric reports how much of the population it covers (typed matters, recorded exposure, chainable timekeepers). Below a threshold the tile shows a floor and says so; it never fills gaps with estimates.
- Cohorts with a minimum n. Any comparison to "comparable" matters states the cohort definition and size; below n = 20 the comparison abstains.
- Ledger truth for money. Recoveries and savings come from the reconciled ledger, not from flagged amounts.
- Role scope. The GC sees all matters; claims leaders, legal ops and finance see their scope. Firms never see this view.