$486M
Outside counsel spend YTD
2.4% over plan
0.92%
M&A legal fees as % of EV, deal-size adjusted
Benchmark 0.78% · 14 deals
$21.4M
Net realized savings, reconciled to payment
4.4% of reviewed · 90% retained after appeals
$1.9M
Cost per closed regulatory inquiry, type-adjusted
Benchmark $1.6M
9
Deals with diligence above 35% of total fees
$3.8M at risk
$6.4M
Unresolved FY28 budget gap after modeled actions
Decision due 31 Oct
$58.6M
Proposed month-end accrual
Firm WIP $39.1M + predicted $19.5M
612
Invoices pending review
31 need your decision
Proactive insights
5 new1 action required2 decisionsRanked by expected dollar impact · filtered to your roleAction requiredDiligence scope. 9 live deals have due-diligence fees above 35% of total deal fees; comparable deals in the $100–250M EV band close at 28%. Capping scope on the 4 pre-LOI targets avoids $1.4M.
Review 9Decision neededStaffing leverage. Firm K partner share is 2.1× the panel median on regulatory inquiries of the same type since Q2; $2.3M annualized. A staffing covenant letter is drafted.
Open draftProposalAssignment rule candidate. Routing conduct-regulator inquiries under $2M expected cost to Firms L and N saves $3.1M/yr at an equal outcome rate and 3 months faster closure.
SimulateProposalFixed-fee candidate. Standard-form derivatives and ISDA negotiations show CV 0.21 across 860 units. Quote $18,500 (p60) to the panel.
Build quoteDue 5 OctAccrual. Proposed accrual $58.6M includes $19.5M of predicted unbilled work on three live deals and two inquiries. Firm-only accrual last quarter under-stated by 24%.
Review accrualDecision neededFY28 budget. Regulatory matter volume explains $9.2M of a $12.6M variance; modeled actions recover $6.2M; $6.4M remains.
Open scenariosProposalRule retune. OCG-2.4 no-first-year-associates realized savings fell 19% Q/Q as firms re-title; OCG-6.1 staffing-leverage test is carrying more weight. Draft v2026.2 ready.
Open draft packPanel value curve
Cost per closed regulatory inquiry, type-adjusted, last 24 monthsSame outcome band (no enforcement action in 71–79% of inquiries) across all seven firms. Firm K is flagged for staffing leverage.
Ask Spend · "Which firms would you move Firm K's conduct inquiries to?" → Firms L and N have capacity for 12 more inquiries each this year. Expected saving $3.1M at equal outcome rate. Open the simulation.
The write-down is the wrong trophy
Invoice adjustment rate ranks Firm K first; legal cost per $100M EV at equal post-close claim rate ranks it last.Adjustment rate · ignore for firm choice
Firm K
3%
Firm L
5%
Firm J
6%
Firm N
6%
Cost per $100M EV vs cohort · the sort
Firm J
−9%
Firm N
−5%
Firm L
+3%
Firm K
+21%
Cheapest on the bill, most expensive on the deal. Firm K runs full-scope diligence on every target; Firm J scopes by materiality with the same post-close claim rate. Open m&a pipeline.
Executive decisions this week
Each has an owner, a deadline, a baseline and a follow-up date| Decision | Owner | Due | Evidence | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 Firms L and N 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 |
Where the money is decided
FY27 YTDAssignment and panel mix$8.4MDiligence gates and litigation settle/defend$5.2MInvoice review, realized$21.4MRate and AFA negotiation$3.9M
A recommendation shows its trigger, cohort definition and exclusions, sample size, freshness, uncertainty, the status-quo option, who can approve, what is reversible, and the follow-up measure. A forecast is useful when it changes a decision.