$212M
Outside counsel spend FY27 YTD
6.5% over plan · plan $199M
$31M
In-house legal cost · 96 FTE
13% of total legal cost
4,116
Open matters
1220 older than 12 months
$904
Blended billed rate per hour
+5.7% YoY · rate +$48 · mix +$39
$11M
Guideline recoveries YTD, reconciled
est. $5.8M still leaking
$352K
Billed by unapproved timekeepers this quarter
4 timekeepers · held
The write-down is the wrong trophy
Fee-schedule adjustment rate ranks Kesten Marlowe first; cost to allowance at equal allowance rate ranks it last.Adjustment rate · ignore for firm choice
Kesten Marlowe
5%
Thiele Roux
7%
Brandt Oyler
8%
Vandermeer IP
9%
Cost to allowance vs cohort · the sort
Brandt Oyler
−22%
Vandermeer IP
−14%
Thiele Roux
−6%
Kesten Marlowe
+46%
Cheapest on the bill, most expensive to allowance. Kesten Marlowe files broad claims and absorbs 3.6 office actions per grant; Brandt Oyler narrows at OA1. The schedule discount is the wrong trophy. The move: Model excluding the 18 legacy small-molecule renewals — $90K scenario, subject to rights-by-rights review and dual sign-off. Open patent portfolio.
YTD spend by matter type
Bar = spend · tick = plan · red = more than 8% over planPatent prosecution
$58M / $54M
IP litigation
$46M / $41M
Product liability / MDL
$40M / $44M
Regulatory · FDA / EMA
$15M / $15M
Commercial & licensing
$19M / $16M
Clinical trial agreements
$6.4M / $6.0M
Employment
$3.1M / $3.0M
Corporate / M&A
$25M / $20M
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 (Anaqua, AP feed)Coverage · n4,116 open + closed matters with FY27 spend · 100% typedFreshnessnightly; AP reconciliation daily
Open matters by type, stage and age
IntakeEarlyMidLateClosingPatent prosecution
1,840
IP litigation
22
Product liability / MDL
1,410
Regulatory · FDA / EMA
64
Commercial & licensing
420
Clinical trial agreements
310
Employment
41
Corporate / M&A
9
| Type | Open | < 90 d | 90–180 | 180–365 | > 365 d | Median age |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patent prosecution | 1,840 | 221 | 331 | 626 | 662 | 420 d |
| IP litigation | 22 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 610 d |
| Product liability / MDL | 1,410 | 169 | 254 | 479 | 508 | 540 d |
| Regulatory · FDA / EMA | 64 | 13 | 17 | 20 | 14 | 260 d |
| Commercial & licensing | 420 | 231 | 118 | 59 | 13 | 110 d |
| Clinical trial agreements | 310 | 170 | 87 | 43 | 9 | 75 d |
| Employment | 41 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 5 | 180 d |
| Corporate / M&A | 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 140 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 (Anaqua)Coverage · n4,116 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 | $1,180 | $1,256 | $1,210 | 38% | 29% |
| Counsel | $940 | $988 | $960 | 8% | 10% |
| Sr associate | $780 | $822 | $800 | 22% | 26% |
| Associate | $590 | $614 | $605 | 22% | 25% |
| Paralegal | $310 | $322 | $315 | 10% | 10% |
Variance decomposition. Blended rate $856 → $904: +$48 from rate increases at constant mix and +$39 from a heavier senior mix than the benchmark. The mix effect is the negotiable one.
Associate-level work done by partners. 6,900 partner hours this year on tasks the classifier codes as associate-level (document review, first drafts, research): premium of $4.4M 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 | +17.2% | +8.9% | +8.3% |
| Sr associate | +15.8% | +8.1% | +8.3% |
| Associate | +12.4% | +7.6% | +8.3% |
| New York | +18.1% | +9.4% | +8.3% |
| Boston | +16.0% | +8.8% | +8.3% |
| Munich | +9.2% | +6.1% | +8.3% |
| Tokyo | +6.4% | +4.0% | +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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office-action responses AU 1600 · fixed $3,400 Fixed fee per unit · 310 units | $1.1M | $1.2M | +$160K (+15%) | Shadow bill above fee |
| MDL claimant resolution · $46K cap Capped fee per claimant · 1,410 units | $65M | $68M | +$3.3M (+5%) | Within collar |
| National filings · agent fee schedule Fee schedule · 644 units | $10M | $10M | −$200K (-2%) | Fee holds |
| IP litigation · phase budgets with 10% collar Phased budget · 22 units | $46M | $50M | +$3.6M (+8%) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R. Vance Kesten Marlowe · Partner | 88 h | $92,400 | 2 Jul | Held |
| Foreign associate pool (6) Kesten Marlowe · Associate | 410 h | $143,500 | 15 Jul | Held |
| L. Brandt Thiele Roux · Counsel | 52 h | $39,000 | 28 Aug | Held |
| Litigation support (contract) Alderton Fitch · Paralegal | 640 h | $76,800 | 9 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 · $352K 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brandt Oyler | 0.88× | 22% | 4% | 0.92× | 89 |
| Vandermeer IP | 0.94× | 27% | 5% | 0.96× | 97 |
| Thiele Roux | 1.03× | 30% | 7% | 1.02× | 104 |
| Alderton Fitch | 1.08× | 34% | 8% | 1.06× | 111 |
| Kesten Marlowe | 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
$4.4M / $1.1M
Block billing and vague entries
$2.6M / $1.9M
Staffing
$1.9M / $1.6M
Expenses, agents and translations
$1.2M / $500K
Pre-approval
$1.1M / $700K
Flagged YTD
$15M
Recovered, reconciled
$11M
Leaked · unflagged estimate
$5.8M
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 MTAs Template + CLM self-service | 1,900 | $1,400 | $2.7M | 2.7 | $2.1M |
| Clinical trial agreement amendments In-house CTA team | 620 | $3,100 | $1.9M | 1.9 | $1.5M |
| Trademark renewals and watch In-house paralegal + docketing | 840 | $480 | $403K | 0.4 | $319K |
| Standard office-action responses (restriction, formalities) In-house agents | 410 | $1,900 | $779K | 0.8 | $611K |
$4.5M 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff steering committee firms (3) Opposing counsel | 1,410 | $40M | Settled $46K median |
| Generic challenger · ANDA filer Counterparty | 7 | $18M | Won 4 · settled 3 |
| Contract research org (2 entities) Counterparty · CTA | 310 | $6.4M | Cycle 41 d · 2 disputes |
| Licensing partner · delivery platform Counterparty | 14 | $3.1M | Royalty disputes 2 · both settled |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Approve abandonment review for 41 third-OA families AU 1600; relevance unconfirmed for 22 | Head of IP · business owners | 9 Oct | Cohort n=240 · p(allowance) 0.38 | Allowance or lapse at next deadline |
| Approve routing rule: GLP-1 formulation families to Brandt Oyler and Vandermeer IP Capacity and conflicts to confirm | IP operations | 15 Oct | Cohort n=180/210 · p20–p80 shown | OAs per grant, 2 cohorts |
| Fund or accept the $2.1M FY28 IP gap After $2.0M 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 featureFamily PF-2023-0107 · interference proceeding
Declined: Excluded from prosecution cohorts by definition; no comparable in client history
Falls back to: Firm budget with IP counsel sign-off at each stage
Licensing arbitration · delivery platform
Declined: One-off: no comparable arbitrations (n = 2)
Falls back to: Phase budget and hearing plan; no firm ranking
AU 2100 drafting · firm ranking
Declined: Cohort n = 14 after widest rung; minimum 20
Falls back to: Assign by guideline; re-checked when n reaches 20
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
$21M of discovery / investigation spend YTD by component · driver metric vs comparable cohortDocument review (firm + contract)
$8.9M
hours per 1,000 docs: 12.6 · cohort 9.8 · +29%
E-discovery vendor
$5.2M
TB hosted: 41 · cohort 24 · +71%
Depositions (bellwether + custodians)
$3.6M
custodians per matter: 46 · cohort 31 · +48%
Expert witnesses
$2.9M
experts per matter: 7 · cohort 5 · +40%
Translation and privilege log
$800K
docs per matter: 12K · cohort 9K · +33%
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 MDL 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.