$486M
Outside counsel spend FY27 YTD
4.3% over plan · plan $466M
$68M
In-house legal cost · 210 FTE
12% of total legal cost
4,225
Open matters
306 older than 12 months
$1,009
Blended billed rate per hour
+6.1% YoY · rate +$58 · mix +$46
$25M
Guideline recoveries YTD, reconciled
est. $13M still leaking
$1.1M
Billed by unapproved timekeepers this quarter
4 timekeepers · held
The write-down is the wrong trophy
Invoice adjustment rate ranks Hallworth Strand first; legal cost per $100M EV at equal post-close claim rate ranks it last.Adjustment rate · ignore for firm choice
Hallworth Strand
3%
Dunleavy Marks
5%
Rowan Pryce
6%
Whitlock Barr
6%
Cost per $100M EV vs cohort · the sort
Rowan Pryce
−9%
Whitlock Barr
−5%
Dunleavy Marks
+3%
Hallworth Strand
+21%
Cheapest on the bill, most expensive on the deal. Hallworth Strand runs full-scope diligence on every target; Rowan Pryce scopes by materiality with the same post-close claim rate. The move: Model materiality-based diligence scope on Northwind and Juniper — Contracts above materiality reviewed in full; 10% sampled below · $0.61M + $0.38M expected saving. Open m&a pipeline.
YTD spend by matter type
Bar = spend · tick = plan · red = more than 8% over planM&A / transactions
$148M / $140M
Regulatory investigations
$96M / $88M
Litigation · customer & commercial
$71M / $76M
Commercial contracts
$42M / $36M
Employment
$18M / $17M
Lending & documentation
$61M / $64M
Privacy & data
$22M / $19M
IP & brand
$28M / $26M
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 (Legal Tracker, AP feed)Coverage · n4,225 open + closed matters with FY27 spend · 100% typedFreshnessnightly; AP reconciliation daily
Open matters by type, stage and age
IntakeEarlyMidLateClosingM&A / transactions
14
Regulatory investigations
31
Litigation · customer & commercial
420
Commercial contracts
1,180
Employment
96
Lending & documentation
2,400
Privacy & data
48
IP & brand
36
| Type | Open | < 90 d | 90–180 | 180–365 | > 365 d | Median age |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M&A / transactions | 14 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 160 d |
| Regulatory investigations | 31 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 11 | 380 d |
| Litigation · customer & commercial | 420 | 50 | 76 | 143 | 151 | 410 d |
| Commercial contracts | 1,180 | 649 | 330 | 165 | 35 | 60 d |
| Employment | 96 | 19 | 25 | 31 | 21 | 200 d |
| Lending & documentation | 2,400 | 1320 | 672 | 336 | 72 | 45 d |
| Privacy & data | 48 | 15 | 14 | 12 | 6 | 150 d |
| IP & brand | 36 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 8 | 300 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 (Legal Tracker)Coverage · n4,225 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 | $1,320 | $1,412 | $1,360 | 38% | 29% |
| Counsel | $1,050 | $1,102 | $1,070 | 9% | 10% |
| Sr associate | $860 | $908 | $885 | 21% | 26% |
| Associate | $640 | $671 | $660 | 22% | 25% |
| Paralegal | $340 | $352 | $345 | 10% | 10% |
Variance decomposition. Blended rate $952 → $1,009: +$58 from rate increases at constant mix and +$46 from a heavier senior mix than the benchmark. The mix effect is the negotiable one.
Associate-level work done by partners. 11,800 partner hours this year on tasks the classifier codes as associate-level (document review, first drafts, research): premium of $8.7M 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 | +19.6% | +9.1% | +8.3% |
| Sr associate | +17.0% | +8.6% | +8.3% |
| Associate | +13.9% | +7.8% | +8.3% |
| New York | +21.0% | +9.9% | +8.3% |
| London | +15.2% | +8.0% | +8.3% |
| Singapore | +11.8% | +6.9% | +8.3% |
| Charlotte | +9.6% | +6.2% | +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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Change-of-control filings · fixed $42K per jurisdiction Fixed fee per unit · 86 units | $3.6M | $4.0M | +$410K (+11%) | Shadow bill above fee |
| Lending documentation · volume rate card Volume pricing · 2,400 units | $61M | $59M | −$1.6M (-3%) | Fee holds |
| Regulatory responses · capped phase fees Capped fee · 31 units | $96M | $103M | +$7.0M (+7%) | Within collar |
| Employment claims · fixed to mediation $38K Fixed fee · 96 units | $3.6M | $4.1M | +$450K (+12%) | Shadow bill above fee |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C. Delacroix Hallworth Strand · Partner | 140 h | $189,000 | 6 Jul | Held |
| Associate pool (9) Hallworth Strand · Associate | 920 h | $598,000 | 6 Jul | Held |
| M. Tan Rowan Pryce · Counsel | 61 h | $61,000 | 22 Aug | Held |
| Document review (vendor via Dunleavy Marks) Dunleavy Marks · Contract reviewer | 3,100 h | $217,000 | 2 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 · $1.1M 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dunleavy Marks | 0.88× | 22% | 4% | 0.92× | 89 |
| Whitlock Barr | 0.94× | 27% | 5% | 0.96× | 97 |
| Ashcombe Fell | 1.03× | 30% | 7% | 1.02× | 104 |
| Rowan Pryce | 1.08× | 34% | 8% | 1.06× | 111 |
| Hallworth Strand | 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
$9.6M / $2.4M
Block billing and vague entries
$5.6M / $4.1M
Staffing
$4.4M / $3.6M
Expenses and disbursements
$2.5M / $1.0M
Pre-approval
$2.5M / $1.5M
Flagged YTD
$33M
Recovered, reconciled
$25M
Leaked · unflagged estimate
$13M
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 CLM self-service + playbook | 2,600 | $1,200 | $3.1M | 3.1 | $2.5M |
| Standard lending documentation In-house documentation unit + templates; keep bespoke with panel | 2,400 | $25,000 | $60M | 60.0 | $47M |
| Employment advice (non-contentious) In-house employment counsel | 410 | $2,900 | $1.2M | 1.2 | $937K |
| Vendor and procurement contracts In-house + template library | 980 | $2,200 | $2.2M | 2.2 | $1.7M |
$52M 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class-action plaintiff firms (4) Opposing counsel | 140 | $31M | Settled 68% · 480 d |
| Fintech counterparties · payments Counterparty | 62 | $9.4M | Commercial disputes 11 |
| Regulator · conduct authority Regulator | 31 | $96M | Avg response cycle 14 d |
| Top-10 institutional clients Customer | 118 | $24M | Exposure recorded on 83% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cap diligence scope on 4 pre-LOI targets Issue-spotting retained; full diligence gated on LOI | Head of corporate legal · corporate development | 9 Oct | Cohort n=64 deals · 28% diligence share p50 | Deal fees as % of EV at close |
| Approve routing rule: conduct inquiries under $2M to Dunleavy Marks and Whitlock Barr Capacity and conflicts to confirm | Panel owner | 15 Oct | Cohort n=88/104 · p20–p80 shown | Cost per closed inquiry, 2 quarters |
| Fund or accept the $6.4M FY28 gap After $6.2M 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 featureProject Harbour · minority fintech stake
Declined: First deal of its structure in client history; EV-band cohort rejected for v1 (not a work-package comparison)
Falls back to: Work-package budgets with scope letters; no deal-level benchmark
Regulatory investigation RI-114
Declined: No comparable investigation at this scale (n = 1)
Falls back to: Phase budget, staffing plan and monthly scope review
Firm ranking · privacy matters
Declined: Cohort n = 11 after widest rung
Falls back to: Panel guideline applies; ranking withheld
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
$39M of discovery / investigation spend YTD by component · driver metric vs comparable cohortDocument review (contract reviewers)
$16M
hours per 1,000 docs: 11.8 · cohort 9.2 · +28%
E-discovery vendor
$9.8M
TB processed: 62 · cohort 38 · +63%
Regulator interviews and witness prep
$6.1M
witnesses per matter: 18 · cohort 12 · +50%
Forensic accounting
$4.2M
per matter: 1.4 · cohort 1.0 · +40%
Privilege review and logs
$2.1M
docs logged: 48K · cohort 31K · +55%
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 regulatory matters 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.