Before you send an outside counsel RFP, your own matter records can answer six questions a law firm proposal alone cannot reliably validate: which firms have handled comparable matters, what that work actually cost, who stayed within budget, how they staffed it, whether their invoices caused problems and where consistently captured, what outcomes they delivered. Most legal departments never ask. They open the RFP process with a blank questionnaire and let the firms define the terms of the conversation.
That’s a lot of evidence to leave sitting in a system you already pay for.
What data should you review before sending an outside counsel RFP?
Which firms have handled similar matters. Marketing decks describe capability in broad strokes. Your matter records show which firms have run comparable work: same subject matter, same complexity, same jurisdictions. A practice group brochure and a track record are different things.
What comparable matters cost. Historical spend gives you a baseline you can defend. Rather than asking firms what they’ll charge in the abstract, you can weigh their pricing against what this kind of work has actually cost you. Look at the median and the range, broken out by firm. Use that history as a directional benchmark, particularly when comparing similar work across firms.
Who stayed within budget. Budget-to-actual variance is one of the most telling metrics in outside counsel management. Firms that land inside their own estimates are firms you can plan around. Firms that don’t become a source of quarterly surprises. Where your department tracks estimates and actuals consistently, use that record to inform the questions and evaluation criteria in the next RFP.
How they staffed it. Partner-to-associate ratios, team size, and how leverage shifted over the life of the matter. Cross-reference that against outcomes and cycle time and patterns start to surface. Some work rewards a lean senior team. Some doesn’t. At a minimum, ask firms to provide a clear proposed team and staffing model; where historical staffing data is available, use it as additional context.
Whose invoices caused problems. Rejected line items, out-of-guideline charges, block billing, timekeepers who never got approved. A firm’s invoice discipline can be a useful signal of the administrative burden it may create during an engagement, and guideline compliance is rarely evenly distributed across a panel.
What outcomes they produced. Wins, settlements, closings, approvals, tied to specific firms and named lead attorneys. This is the hardest of the six to capture consistently. It’s also the closest thing to a scorecard you’ll get. Where your department captures outcomes in structured fields, tie them to the responsible firm and lead attorneys.
Answer those six before an RFP goes out and the process changes shape. You stop asking firms to describe themselves and start asking them to explain the distance between what they claim and what your records show.
Why do legal departments skip their own RFP data?
For many departments, it lives in three or four places. Matter details in one system, invoices in another, budgets in a spreadsheet on someone’s desktop, outcomes in an email thread. Pulling a coherent picture together for one firm takes hours. Doing it across a panel takes weeks, and the RFP deadline rarely waits.
There’s a cultural reason too. Matter management has historically been treated as record-keeping. The idea that the same records should inform the next sourcing decision is fairly new, and it doesn’t have an obvious owner in most departments.
How do you bring matter data into the RFP process?
Standardize what you capture. Practice area, matter type, jurisdiction, staffing, budget, actual spend, cycle time, outcome. If those fields aren’t populated consistently, nothing downstream will fix it.
Let what you find set your evaluation criteria. If invoice discipline is a chronic problem across your panel, weigh it explicitly in scoring. If budget predictability is the sore spot, ask firms to defend their record on it.
Feed the results back in. Capture the same fields on the new panel. Year three of a sourcing program should look nothing like year one.
What changes in the RFP itself
Better inputs are only half of it. The evaluation has to be structured well enough to use them: standardized questionnaires so pricing arrives in a format you can line up side by side, blind review so evaluators score independently, weighted dimensions that reflect what your history says matters, and conflict questions asked the same way every time.
Structured bidding belongs in the conversation too. For defined, price-comparable work where several qualified firms are competing; a reverse auction lets them adjust pricing against anonymized rankings and produces a record of how pricing moved. It is not the right approach for every engagement; expertise, capacity, conflicts, urgency, and relationship fit should remain part of the evaluation. That record is often more useful in the CFO conversation than the final number, because it shows the competitive pressure was real.
Where this leaves you
Relationships should stay in the decision. Lawyers know things about firms that no dataset captures. But relationships alone won’t hold up when finance asks why a particular firm won a seven-figure engagement, and they won’t tell you which firm in an otherwise fine-looking panel is drifting.
Unity RFP is where that structure lives. It’s a module inside the Unity platform, working alongside matter management and e-billing rather than as a separate sourcing tool, with reusable questionnaire templates, side-by-side proposal comparison, weighted scoring with blind review, conflict-of-interest disclosures and documented responses, reverse auctions, standardized conflict-disclosure questions and documented responses, and a complete record of how the decision was made. For matter-specific RFPs, confirm the applicable rate-card, rate-transfer, and enforcement workflow before stating that negotiated rates automatically flow into Matter Management.
Government agencies are under increasing pressure to modernize operations while working within tight budgets, limited staff, and evolving procurement requirements. One area seeing significant growth is the use of Government Purchase Cards (GPCs) and other micro-purchase programs, which allow agencies to procure low-dollar solutions quickly and efficiently.
For legal departments, procurement teams, and administrative offices, this shift presents an opportunity to adopt technology that improves efficiency without requiring lengthy procurement cycles.
Why Government Purchase Cards Matter
The Government Purchase Card program has become the preferred purchasing method for many low-dollar acquisitions across federal agencies. Similar purchasing programs also exist at the state and local level, helping organizations reduce administrative burden while accelerating access to essential technology.
For legal and procurement professionals, this means the focus is no longer just on finding the right solution. It’s also about finding solutions that are easy to purchase, deploy quickly, and deliver measurable value.
Technology that aligns with these procurement models gives agencies the ability to improve operations while remaining compliant with purchasing regulations.
The Challenges Facing Government Legal Teams
Public sector legal departments manage a growing volume of contracts, investigations, litigation, public records requests, and regulatory matters. Many agencies continue to rely on disconnected spreadsheets, shared drives, email, or paper-based processes that create unnecessary risk.
Common challenges include:
Difficulty locating contracts and case files
Missed renewal dates and compliance deadlines
Limited visibility into workloads and case status
Manual approval processes that slow operations
Increasing expectations for transparency and accountability
At the same time, staffing levels often remain flat while workloads continue to increase.
Modern Legal Operations Start with Better Information Management
Cloud-based legal technology helps agencies centralize information while automating many of the manual tasks that consume valuable staff time.
For contract management, a centralized repository gives authorized users immediate access to current agreements while automated reminders help prevent missed renewals. AI-assisted metadata extraction and integrated eSignature capabilities further reduce administrative work and eliminate the need for multiple standalone tools.
Case and matter management platforms provide similar benefits by organizing documents, emails, investigations, and legal matters within a single secure system. Workflow automation helps ensure deadlines are met, while dashboards provide leadership with real-time visibility into caseloads and operational performance.
Together, these capabilities allow agencies to spend less time managing paperwork and more time serving their constituents.
Procurement Shouldn’t Be the Barrier to Modernization
One of the biggest obstacles to adopting new technology has traditionally been the procurement process itself.
Subscription-based software fits well within many agency purchasing models by providing predictable costs, rapid deployment, and reduced infrastructure requirements.
For agencies using purchase cards, this can significantly shorten the timeline between identifying a need and implementing a solution.
Security and Compliance Remain Essential
Government organizations cannot sacrifice security for speed.
When evaluating legal technology, agencies should look for solutions that provide:
Secure cloud hosting
Role-based access controls
Audit trails
Encryption for data at rest and in transit
U.S.-based hosting
Compliance with standards such as SOC 2 and other applicable government security requirements
These capabilities help agencies protect sensitive legal information while supporting transparency and regulatory compliance.
Supporting Government Legal Teams with Purpose-Built Technology
Onit offers solutions designed to help government legal teams modernize operations while simplifying procurement.
ContractWorks provides cloud-based contract lifecycle management with unlimited users, AI-assisted contract organization, integrated eSignatures, automated reminders, and reporting that helps agencies improve contract visibility and reduce administrative effort.
ReadySign delivers secure, cloud-based electronic signature capabilities that help government legal teams execute documents faster without heavy IT involvement. With unlimited users, reusable templates, automated reminders, and a complete audit trail for every signature, ReadySign streamlines approvals while maintaining the security and compliance agencies require. Its straightforward, subscription-based pricing and rapid setup—with no lengthy implementation—make it easy to purchase and deploy within purchase-card and micro-purchase programs.
Together, these solutions provide a modern foundation for legal operations while supporting the procurement flexibility that today’s government buyers increasingly expect.
Looking Ahead
Government purchasing continues to evolve toward faster, more efficient acquisition methods. As agencies look to modernize legal operations, technology that combines secure cloud delivery, rapid implementation, and procurement-friendly purchasing options will become increasingly valuable.
Organizations that align both their technology strategy and procurement approach will be better positioned to improve service delivery, increase operational transparency, and make the most of limited public resources.
To learn how Onit’s government solutions can help your agency streamline legal operations and simplify procurement, contact our team or explore our public sector solutions.
Ask almost any court administrator what’s changed in the last two years, and you’ll hear a version of the same thing: the expectations went up, the deadlines got tighter, and the resources didn’t follow.
It’s a familiar bind for anyone in public-sector legal work. New rules demand faster, more consistent case handling. Legislatures agree modernization matters. Then the budget arrives, and the funding covers a fraction of what the work actually requires. The mandate is real. The money is not — at least not yet.
Florida is a sharp, current example. The state’s trial courts asked for roughly $27 million to launch a case management technology overhaul; they received about a tenth of that. A parallel request for nearly 50 new case managers — the people who would monitor dockets and keep cases on schedule — went unfunded entirely. All of this lands at the exact moment Florida’s rewritten civil procedure rules require every case to be tracked, scheduled, and held to deadlines that “must be strictly enforced.” More accountability, tighter timelines, and roughly the same staff and systems to deliver it.
Florida isn’t an outlier. It’s a preview. Courts and government legal offices across the country are being handed the same equation, and it doesn’t balance with headcount alone.
So the practical question for court leaders isn’t whether to modernize — the rules have decided that. It’s how to get dramatically more visibility, consistency, and throughput out of the resources they already have.
That’s where the right technology stops being a “someday” line item and becomes the thing holding the whole plan together. A modern case management platform absorbs work that would otherwise demand more people:
It maps every case to the right track and flags deadlines before they slip, so rule compliance doesn’t hinge on manual calendaring across thousands of matters. It automates the routine routing, status updates, and standard documents that quietly consume staff time. It gives judges and administrators a live view of docket health — the same monitoring those unfunded case-manager roles were meant to provide. And it turns performance into data, so leadership can show what’s working and make the case for the next round of funding on evidence, not hope.
None of this replaces the need for people or budget. But it changes what a court can do while it waits for both. The offices that treat this as a process-and-technology challenge — not only a funding problem — will keep cases moving on deadline while others fall further behind.
That gap, between what’s required and what’s resourced, is exactly where the right system earns its keep. The hard part isn’t recognizing the need — it’s choosing a platform that actually fits how courts and government legal offices work, without a multi-year rollout you can’t fund. If that’s the decision in front of you, start here: how to select the right government legal case management system. It walks through what to prioritize when the pressure is high and the budget is tight — which, right now, is just about everywhere.
Legal AI has largely been sold on productivity: faster research, drafting, and review. But as legal departments move from experimentation to deployment, speed is no longer the only consideration.
The next question is whether AI can take action within legal workflows while preserving the approvals, controls, and records the department needs.
Recent industry research backs this up. Deloitte’s 2026 report, The AI Imperative: Reshaping of the Legal Industry, found that 71% of surveyed legal departments had moved beyond experimentation into initial, scaling, or fully embedded AI deployment. That is a sharp shift up from a landscape where 76% reported no adoption just two years earlier. Among the 121 senior legal leaders surveyed, 79% said their legal department’s AI investment had increased year over year. For departments increasing investment, budgets rose by an average of 67%.
But the same research points to a gap. Departments are buying AI tools faster than they are investing in the training, process redesign, and data foundations needed to use those tools well. Most of the money is going to technology, not to the people and systems around it.
That gap defines the next stage of legal AI. Generating an answer is one thing. Taking action with the right permissions, approvals, escalation paths, and audit history is another.
When AI Takes Action, Accountability Matters
Agentic AI, meaning AI that does not just draft but takes multi-step action, is quickly becoming a live buyer conversation. Deloitte found that 61% of surveyed legal departments are already experimenting with or piloting agentic AI. For legal teams, potential applications include intake triage, contract routing, and other repeatable workflows with defined decision points. (For a plain-English primer on what agentic AI actually is, see Agentic AI in Legal Operations: What It Is and Why It Matters.)
But autonomy without accountability is a liability, not a feature.
Every legal team evaluating agentic AI should be asking the same handful of questions. Who approved this action? What happens when the AI is uncertain? Is there a human in the loop before something is finalized? Is there a record afterward that would hold up under audit?
These are not hypothetical concerns. They are the actual criteria shaping how legal departments evaluate AI vendors right now.
Where work happens matters, but it is not the whole story
Legal AI vendors have converged on making their tools available inside familiar surfaces, Microsoft Word chief among them. That is a legitimate and overdue improvement. Lawyers should not have to leave the tools they already use to get AI assistance.
But where AI drafts a clause is a much smaller question than what happens to that clause afterward.
Does it connect to a matter?
Does it trigger a review workflow?
Does it roll into spend, vendor, or obligation tracking anywhere else in the organization?
A clause that lives only inside a word processor, however capable the assistant that wrote it, still leaves the rest of the legal operating model disconnected.
The governed execution layer
This is the frame legal teams should use to evaluate AI: not only which assistant is smartest, but which platform can be trusted to execute, govern, and record legal work end to end. In practice, that means:
Permissions and approval gates before an action is finalized
A durable, auditable record of what the AI did and why
Connection across the legal function — matters, contracts, spend, vendors, and outside counsel — rather than an isolated point tool
Measurable outcomes tied to the work itself, not just usage metrics
None of this lives in the interface. It lives in the system of record underneath the work, the operational backbone a legal department already runs on. That is the layer where AI becomes durable rather than disposable, and it is the layer Onit has spent over a decade building.
Legal departments do not need one more assistant. They need an execution layer they can govern.
Preparing for Agentic AI in Legal Operations
If your team is moving from experimenting with AI to trusting it with real work, the next question is what “agentic” actually means in a legal context, and where autonomy makes sense versus where a human still belongs in the loop.
Legal operations teams spend countless hours reviewing invoices, enforcing billing guidelines and negotiating reductions with outside counsel. It’s an important part of managing legal spend, and one that can lead to significant cost savings over time.
But there’s a question many organizations overlook:
Can you actually prove the value of those savings?
If negotiated write-downs are tracked in email threads, spreadsheets or informal conversations, they’re difficult to measure, report on and use to demonstrate the impact of legal operations. While the savings are real, the visibility often isn’t.
For legal operations leaders, that’s a missed opportunity. It’s not enough to reduce spend. You also need to show how your team is delivering measurable business value.
Negotiating Savings Is Only Half the Battle
Most organizations have a process for reviewing outside counsel invoices. Legal teams flag billing issues, challenge questionable charges and negotiate adjustments before invoices are approved.
The problem is what happens next.
In many organizations, those negotiated reductions never make it into a centralized system. Instead, they’re documented in emails, noted in spreadsheets or simply remembered by the people involved. Over time, that creates gaps in reporting and makes it difficult to answer questions like:
How much did we save through invoice review this quarter?
Which firms consistently require adjustments?
Are our billing guidelines improving compliance over time?
Where are we seeing the greatest opportunities to reduce spend?
Without reliable data, legal operations teams are left relying on anecdotes instead of measurable outcomes.
Visibility Turns Savings Into Strategic Value
Negotiating better invoices is valuable. Being able to demonstrate that value to finance and executive leadership is even more powerful.
When savings are captured within your enterprise legal management platform, legal operations teams can:
Report on realized savings with confidence.
Identify trends across firms, matters and practice areas.
Measure compliance with outside counsel billing guidelines.
Support budgeting and forecasting conversations with accurate data.
Demonstrate the ongoing impact of legal operations initiatives.
Instead of simply saying, “We’re helping control outside counsel costs,” you can show exactly how much value your team has delivered and where that value came from.
That evidence strengthens conversations with finance, informs outside counsel strategy and gives legal operations a clearer way to demonstrate its impact on the business.
Build Savings Tracking Into Your Process
Creating better visibility doesn’t necessarily require more work. It often requires a better process.
Rather than managing invoice negotiations outside of your legal technology, consider bringing those activities into the same platform where invoices are reviewed and approved.
Some best practices include:
Capture negotiated invoice adjustments directly within your ELM platform.
Standardize invoice review workflows across the legal team.
Use billing guidelines and automated review rules to improve consistency.
Monitor trends through dashboards and reporting rather than spreadsheets.
Use historical data to benchmark outside counsel performance and inform future rate negotiations.
The goal is not simply to centralize information. It is to connect invoice adjustments with firm, matter, budget and accrual data so the legal team can understand what is driving spend and where intervention is having the greatest impact.
A Real-World Example
The RealReal, the world’s largest online marketplace for authenticated luxury resale, faced this same challenge.
Like many legal departments, the team was reviewing invoices and negotiating reductions with outside counsel. However, those write-downs were happening outside of their enterprise legal management platform, making it difficult to measure and report on the savings they were achieving.
By centralizing invoice adjustments and taking fuller advantage of their ELM capabilities, the team gained greater visibility into noncompliant charges and the savings generated through invoice review.
The team also began using data to compare requested attorney rates with similarly positioned firms and practitioners. Those insights supported outside counsel negotiations that resulted in rate reductions of 5% to 20% off standard rates for a number of firms.
The result wasn’t just better invoice management. It was a more complete understanding of outside counsel spend and more meaningful insights to support future decision making.
Want to see how they did it? Read the full The RealReal customer story to learn how the team improved visibility into legal spend and unlocked more value from its legal technology.
Proving Value Is the Next Step in Legal Spend Management
Reducing outside counsel spend is an important objective for every legal department. But today’s legal operations leaders are expected to do more than control costs. They’re expected to measure results, communicate impact and support smarter business decisions.
The organizations that stand out aren’t just the ones negotiating better invoices. They’re the ones that can clearly demonstrate the value of every improvement they make.
When savings become measurable, legal operations becomes more than an operational function. It becomes a strategic driver of business value.
7 Signs Your Organization Needs Modern CLM Software
For many legal departments, outside counsel selection still starts with relationships, familiar firms, and past experience.
Those factors matter. Legal work is high-stakes, and relationships can be valuable. But as legal departments face more pressure from finance, procurement, and executive leadership, the old approach is getting harder to defend on its own.
Outside counsel is often one of the largest areas of legal spend, yet many teams still lack a consistent way to compare firms, evaluate value, and manage performance after selection. T
That’s where a well-run RFP can help.
RFPs are not about replacing legal judgment with a procurement checklist. They are about giving legal teams the structure and information they need to choose the right firms for the right work.
Below, we break down five common RFP myths and what legal teams should do instead.
Myth #1: Legal RFPs Are Just a Procurement Exercise
One of the most common objections to RFPs is they exist solely to satisfy procurement requirements.
In reality, well-designed legal RFPs are strategic decision-making tools. They help legal teams gather meaningful information about a firm’s expertise, staffing approach, technology investments, pricing model, and overall fit.
The goal is not to replace legal judgment with a procurement process. It is to give legal teams the structure and insight they need to choose the right firm for the right work.
What to do instead: Position RFPs as a collaborative evaluation process focused on finding the best partner, not simply fulfilling a procurement mandate.
Myth #2: The Lowest Bidder Always Wins
Many law firms assume RFPs are simply a race to the bottom on price.
The reality is far more nuanced. RFPs are as much about information as they are about the best price.
Leading legal departments evaluate proposals across multiple dimensions, including:
Matter strategy
Relevant experience
Staffing models
Predictability
Technology capabilities
Overall value
While cost matters, it is rarely the sole deciding factor. In fact, organizations often favor firms that demonstrate the strongest overall value proposition, even when they are not the lowest-cost option.
What to do instead: Evaluate firms holistically. Focus on total value and expected outcomes rather than hourly rates alone.
Myth #3: We Already Know the Best Firms
Many legal departments rely on a small group of trusted firms they’ve worked with for years.
The challenge is that legal markets evolve quickly.
Firms develop new capabilities. Rising talent emerges. Technology investments change service delivery models. New competitors enter the market.
Even when incumbent firms ultimately retain the work, a structured RFP process often uncovers valuable information about alternative providers and reveals opportunities to improve existing relationships.
As Jason Winmill noted, the process frequently surfaces insights that legal teams simply wouldn’t have the opportunity to learn about otherwise.
What to do instead: Treat RFPs as a market intelligence exercise, not just a vendor selection exercise.
Myth #4: Formal RFPs Damage Law Firm Relationships
Some legal leaders avoid RFPs because they worry trusted firms will view them negatively.
In practice, the opposite is often true.
When handled thoughtfully, RFPs create opportunities for deeper conversations around expectations, service models, innovation, and value. They establish transparency and encourage meaningful dialogue between legal departments and their outside counsel.
The key is communication.
Law firms generally understand that legal departments face increasing pressure to demonstrate value and manage costs. A well-run process reinforces accountability without undermining trust. Additionally, modern firms are structured in a way that they now have full visibility into their data and operating models, and are positioned to partner with legal departments on something that is a win-win.
What to do instead: Focus on transparency, professionalism, and clear communication throughout the process.
Myth #5: Once the Panel Is Selected, the Work Is Done
This may be the most expensive myth of all.
Selecting outside counsel is only the beginning.
The most successful legal departments continue managing relationships after selection by establishing:
Clear scope definitions
Staffing expectations
Budget guidelines
Communication protocols
Performance metrics
Regular review cadences
Without ongoing governance, many of the benefits gained during the RFP process can quickly disappear.
As the presenters noted, selecting a firm is simply the first leg of the marathon. Real value comes from how the relationship is managed over time.
The Bottom Line
Legal RFPs are no longer just procurement exercises. They have become strategic tools that help legal departments gain valuable insights from their law firm partners, improve decision-making, strengthen outside counsel relationships, and maximize value from legal spend.
The organizations seeing the greatest success aren’t treating RFPs as one-time events. They’re using structured evaluation processes, data-driven insights, and ongoing governance to build stronger partnerships and better business outcomes.
The question is no longer whether legal departments should use RFPs. It’s whether they’re using them strategically enough.
Onit has been named to the 2026 Global 100 Most Loved Workplaces®, featured in The Economist.
This recognition reflects the experiences that matter most in a workplace, including connection, growth, trust, and shared purpose. For Onit, it is also a reflection of the people who bring our mission to life every day.
For more than 15 years, Onit has helped legal teams work smarter and operate with greater impact. As the legal industry continues to evolve, our people remain at the center of that progress. Across functions and regions, Onit employees support our customers, shape our products, and move the business forward with care, curiosity, and commitment.
That kind of workplace does not happen by accident. It is built over time through how teams collaborate, solve problems, and bring new ideas forward. It also influences how we innovate, helping drive the continued evolution of our Unity platform and AI-native approach to legal technology.
“This recognition reflects the people behind Onit,” said Nathan Peirson, Chief Operating Officer. “Across our teams, there is a shared commitment to meaningful work and to supporting one another as we help customers navigate a changing legal landscape. I am proud of the culture our employees have built together and grateful for the momentum they continue to create.”
As Onit continues to advance Unity and our vision for AI-driven legal technology, this recognition reinforces a core belief. The future of legal is built by teams who are empowered to innovate, collaborate, and lead change.
Learn more about the 2026 Global 100 Most Loved Workplaces here.
The Legal AI category has spent the last several weeks in a narrative pile-up.
A pure-play AI Legal vendor closed funding at an $11 billion valuation. A direct competitor closed at $5.5 billion. Within days, an open-source alternative dropped on GitHub claiming feature parity with both. Every Legal tech newsletter, podcast, and analyst note has been dissecting what it means.
Most of the analysis has missed the point.
The story being told is about who wins the Legal AI race. Who has the best foundation model. The slickest interface. The fastest growth chart. The richest funding round. The most ambitious open-source rebuttal.
It is a compelling story. It is also the wrong race.
Front-end AI is the easy part
Building a chat interface on top of a foundation model has become a fast project. The recent open-source release proves it. A working alternative to two of the most-funded companies in the category, available as free code anyone can run.
That is not a knock on any of those companies. They have done real work. But the speed at which their core capability can be replicated tells you something important about where the defensible value in Legal AI actually lives.
It does not live in the interface.
It does not live in the foundation model.
It lives in the system of record underneath the work.
What that system of record actually is
Legal operations does not happen in a chat window. It happens across matter management, spend management, vendor relationships, compliance frameworks, document repositories, billing systems, and the integrations that connect all of them to the rest of an enterprise.
Onit has spent over a decade building that infrastructure. Today it serves more than 3,000 corporate Legal teams and connects more than 23,000+ law firms. It is the operational backbone that Legal departments at the world’s largest companies actually run on.
That is the layer where AI for Legal becomes durable. A chat interface can be replaced in a week. A system of record cannot be replaced in a year, and the data, workflows, and trust accumulated inside it cannot be replicated at any speed.
What we did in twelve hours
When the open-source Legal AI release dropped, our AI team was already deep into building Olava, Onit’s own small language model, and the broader AI capability layer of our platform. The release was not a surprise. It was a market signal that the front-end of Legal AI had reached commodity status, exactly as we had been building toward.
So we ran a test.
Within twelve hours of the release, our team integrated it with Olava and put it in front of our own Legal department to evaluate against the work already underway on our platform. Real lawyers. Real workflows. Real comparison.
Twelve hours.
What that test confirmed was what we already believed. The interface is replicable. The foundation models are commoditizing. The defensible value of Legal AI lives in what surrounds it. The data, the integrations, the security posture, the network of Legal teams and law firms doing the work.
The integration itself was not twelve hours of work. The years of platform investment that made twelve hours possible, secure deployment pipelines, model evaluation infrastructure, data architecture, integration scaffolding, was the harder thing. The twelve-hour test is a proof point about the platform, not just the team.
What we are committing to
Olava is real. It is in active development. It will be in production with our own Legal department in the coming weeks, and in customer pilots shortly after.
That is one piece of a broader commitment. Every new AI capability that emerges in this category, whether from a well-funded vendor, an open-source contributor, or anywhere else, can be evaluated, integrated, and deployed inside the platform our customers already trust, on the security posture they already know.
We are not going to chase the AI hype cycle. We are going to do the harder work of putting durable AI capability into the system of record where Legal actually happens.
Why this matters for the category
The companies winning the AI hype cycle today are racing on a dimension where speed compounds quickly and moats erode just as fast. Their models will be matched. Their interfaces will be cloned. Their funding rounds will not protect them from the underlying truth that everything they have built can be rebuilt in a fraction of the time it took to build it the first time.
The companies that will define what Legal AI actually becomes, five years from now, ten years from now, are the ones building at the infrastructure layer. The system of record. The system of process. The trust posture. The network of Legal teams and law firms doing the work.
Onit is one of those companies.
What comes next
The next 30 days will bring more. A behind-the-scenes look at our AI work, the workflows Olava is being designed to support inside our own Legal department, customers joining the early access program, a live broadcast with our AI team, and an honest accounting of what is working and what is not.
The bigger story will unfold over the next several quarters. The Legal AI race is not going to be won where the market is currently watching. It will be won underneath, in the infrastructure that makes Legal work actually run.
Vendor relationships don’t fail overnight. They drift. Rates creep up through one-off exceptions. Matter scoping stays vague to avoid slowing intake. Invoice issues repeat across engagements because no one connects the pattern to the firm behind it. By the time a legal operations team recognizes the problem, legal vendor management has already stalled… the behavior is already habitual, and the budget has already absorbed the cost.
Connected contract and matter systems change that dynamic. When contract terms, matter performance, and invoice data exist in a single operational environment, vendor accountability shifts from reactive to structural.
Accountability gaps don’t announce themselves
Most legal departments manage vendor relationships across separate systems. Contract terms live in one repository. Matter details sit in spreadsheets or a standalone matter management platform. Invoice data routes through an eBilling tool that doesn’t connect to either. Vendor performance exists in someone’s memory or, at best, a quarterly review deck assembled by hand.
When these systems operate in isolation, accountability becomes a manual exercise. Teams have to pull data from multiple sources, reconcile inconsistencies, and reconstruct timelines to answer basic questions: Is this firm billing within the agreed rate structure? Are matter outcomes consistent with projected costs? Are invoices reflecting the scope defined at matter opening?
Without connected systems, those questions take days to answer and often go unasked.
What disconnection costs in legal vendor management
Fragmented legal vendor management creates compounding costs that aren’t always visible in any single report. Spending rarely spikes suddenly. It drifts upward through quiet signals: outside counsel rates increasing through exceptions that become routine, matter scopes left vague to avoid slowing intake, and invoice issues tied to the same firms repeating across engagements.
When legal workflow management tools don’t connect intake to matters to spend, those signals stay hidden. Teams feel the pressure of rising costs without the visibility to trace them to their source. By the time leadership and finance ask questions, the underlying issues have been compounding for months.
This is the operational cost of disconnected systems. It isn’t just inefficiency. It’s lost leverage in every vendor negotiation, budget conversation, and performance review.
How connected systems reframe vendor relationships
Connecting contract data to matter management creates a closed loop that didn’t exist when systems operated separately. Contract terms agreed upon at engagement set expectations. Matter performance data tests whether those expectations are being met. Invoice review enforces compliance against both.
When these systems share a single operational record, discrepancies surface automatically rather than through manual investigation. A firm billing outside agreed rate structures triggers a flag before the invoice reaches approval. Matter costs trending above forecast generate an alert tied to the responsible vendor. Clause-level obligations from the engagement letter connect to outcomes tracked throughout the matter lifecycle.
This isn’t about creating friction with outside counsel. It’s about replacing anecdotal accountability with structural accountability. Firms that perform well have the data to demonstrate it. Firms that don’t have fewer places to hide.
What vendor intelligence actually requires
Effective legal vendor management depends on data that reflects how firms actually perform across real work, not how they present themselves in pitch decks or annual reviews. That requires connecting the right data points across the contract and matter lifecycle.
At the contract stage, terms matter. Rate structures, billing guidelines, staffing expectations, and scope definitions all set the baseline for accountability. If those terms exist only in a signed document stored in a separate repository, they can’t be enforced automatically or referenced in real time during invoice review or matter oversight.
At the matter stage, performance data matters. Cycle times, budget variance, timekeeper activity, and outcome patterns all reveal how a firm actually operates. Without matter management software that captures this information consistently and connects it to vendor records, performance reviews rely on incomplete information or manual reconstruction.
At the invoice stage, compliance matters. AI-driven invoice review tools can flag billing anomalies, identify patterns of non-compliance, and enforce guidelines before invoices reach approval. But that enforcement is far stronger when invoice data connects to both the contract terms that define the rules and the matter data that provides context for each line item.
Visibility enables different conversations
Legal operations teams that connect these systems report a meaningful shift in how they engage with outside counsel. Instead of reactive conversations about why a specific invoice was flagged, they can surface pattern-level insights: this firm consistently exceeds budget on matters of this type, or this timekeeper’s rate doesn’t align with the agreed structure across multiple engagements.
That kind of evidence-based conversation changes the dynamic. It shifts the burden from legal ops teams having to prove a problem to outside counsel having to explain one.
Modern eBilling platforms, when connected to matter management and contract repositories, provide exactly this kind of visibility. Dashboards show spend by firm, matter type, and practice area. Analytics identify billing behavior patterns rather than individual exceptions. Reports compare forecasts created at matter opening to actual outcomes, revealing where estimates consistently diverge from reality.
What effective legal matter management makes possible
Legal matter management software that centralizes budgets, timekeepers, invoices, and outcomes in one place does more than reduce administrative work. It creates the infrastructure for vendor accountability to function as an operational capability rather than a quarterly exercise.
When matter records are structured consistently, legal ops teams can analyze spend by vendor across comparable matter types. They can benchmark outside counsel performance against peer firms. They can identify which engagements deliver value aligned with contract terms and which ones consistently miss expectations.
This analysis isn’t possible when matter data lives in spreadsheets and vendor information lives in separate systems. Industry benchmarks indicate legal departments using data-driven tools can save an average of 12 to 18 percent in legal spending. That figure reflects what becomes possible when accountability is structural rather than manual.
The role of contract data in ongoing oversight
Contract lifecycle management tools contribute to vendor accountability beyond the signing stage. Obligations don’t end at execution. Payment terms, milestone requirements, confidentiality provisions, and staffing commitments all require ongoing monitoring.
When CLM systems connect to matter management, obligation tracking becomes part of daily operations rather than a periodic audit. Alerts surface when renewal dates approach. Flags appear when performance deviates from contract terms. Reporting connects contract compliance to matter outcomes, giving legal ops teams a complete picture of whether vendor relationships are delivering on their original terms.
What integration changes for legal operations leaders
Legal operations leaders who have connected contract, matter, and spend data describe a fundamental shift in how they approach vendor management. The work moves from chasing information to acting on it.
Vendor decisions that previously relied on anecdotal knowledge become evidence-based. Quarterly business reviews shift from status updates to performance analysis grounded in operational data. Budget conversations with finance become more credible because spend forecasts connect to matter-level detail rather than high-level estimates.
The goal isn’t to create adversarial relationships with outside counsel. Most firms perform well when expectations are clear and consistently enforced. Connected systems make that consistency possible at scale, across all vendors, all matters, and all invoices, without requiring manual oversight of every interaction.
Building vendor accountability into operations
Vendor accountability doesn’t require more manual reviews. It requires earlier awareness of risk patterns, and systems designed to surface them automatically.
Teams that achieve predictability in vendor management tend to share specific characteristics. They connect intake, matters, and invoices to understand cost drivers before work begins. In addition, they focus on behavior patterns rather than individual line items. They rely on systems to surface signals instead of expecting people to find them manually. They treat spend insight as an operational capability, not a quarterly exercise.
That approach requires connected systems. It requires contract terms that travel with the matter. It requires invoice review that references both. And it requires analytics that reveal patterns across the entire vendor portfolio, not just isolated incidents.
If your team is ready to move beyond reactive vendor management and build accountability into how work actually flows, explore our comprehensive guide, Make Your Move: A Strategic Guide to Escaping the Manual Maze of Modern Legal Work. It outlines practical steps legal teams can take to connect their systems, reduce manual work, and create the visibility that vendor accountability actually depends on.
The Uniform Task-Based Management System (UTBMS) details a series of code sets that law firms use to classify services on electronic invoices sent to clients, such as legal operations and corporate legal departments.
UTBMS codes make detailed spend reporting possible by ensuring that each task and expense is categorized. That way, when you notice in Q1 that spending is out of control, you’re able to identify and solve the problem before Q4. Of course, in order for reporting to be accurate, you must first fully understand UTBMS codes and how to use them.
The creators designed UTBMS codes to standardize the categorization of legal services and expenses so that legal work and the associated costs could be easily identified and analyzed. You can learn more about the LEDES file format and LOC at utbms.com.
UTBMS codes are used in many legal systems around the world, including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. For this article, we will focus on UTBMS standards for e-Billing set by the ABA and LOC.
American Bar Association UTBMS codes
When used consistently and properly, ABA UTBMS task codes allow you to monitor legal spending and associated activities.
All ABA UTBMS codes are broken into categories and phases. Categories are identified by the beginning letter (e.g., L for ABA litigation codes) while phases are specified by the number (100s for phase 1, 200s for phase 2, etc.). While some UTBMS codes are fairly self-explanatory, others require a deeper explanation. We’ll walk you through all of the ABA UTBMS codes, and provide more insight when necessary.
Activity
Activity codes identify the type of activity associated with a cost.
A101 Plan and prepare for
A102 Research
A103 Draft/revise
A104 Review/analyze
A105 Communicate (in firm)
A106 Communicate (with client)
A107 Communicate (other outside counsel)
A108 Communicate (other external)
A109 Appear for/attend
A110 Manage data/files
A111 Other
Although not all clients require the use of UTBMS activity codes, this code set is useful for segmenting specific types of work. For instance, the four separate communication codes ensure more accurate spend tracking for both counsel and client. In situations where you may need to consult with an expert as well as outside counsel, codes A108 and A107, respectively, allow you to categorize time spent on each type of communication.
Bankruptcy
Derived from the code set published by the U.S. Department of Justice, bankruptcy UTBMS codes are intended only for bankruptcy matters. All adversarial tasks are covered by the litigation code set. The 21 bankruptcy ABA task codes are broken up into four phases.
B100 Administration
UTBMS codes in the B100 phase include administrative work during preparation, such as research, fee applications, and communication with creditors.
B110 Case Administration: Preparation of coordination and compliance matters, financial affairs statements, and general creditor inquiries
B120 Asset Analysis and Recovery: Identification and review of potential assets including causes of action and non-litigation recoveries
B130 Asset Disposition: Sales, abandonment and transaction work related to asset disposition
B140 Relief from Stay/Adequate Protection Proceedings: Matters relating to termination or continuation of automatic stay under 362 and motions for adequate protection
B150 Meetings of and Communications with Creditors: Preparing for and attending the conference of creditors, the 341(a) meeting and other creditors’ committee meetings
B160 Fee/Employment Applications: Preparations of employment and fee applications for self or others; motions to establish interim procedures
B170 Fee/Employment Objections: Review of and objections to the employment and fee applications of others
B180 Avoidance Action Analysis: Review of potential avoiding actions under Sections 544–549 of the Code to determine whether adversary proceedings are warranted
B185 Assumption/Rejection of Leases and Contracts: Analysis of leases and executory contracts and preparation of motions specifically to assume or reject
B190 Other Contested Matters (excluding assumption/rejection motions): Analysis and preparation of all other motions, opposition to motions and reply memoranda in support of motions
B195 Non-Working Travel: Non-working travel where the court reimburses at less than full hourly rates
B200 Operations
B200 codes cover business matters, such as document review, employee benefits, cash collaterals, real estate, and tax issues.
B210 Business Operations: Issues related to debtor-in-possession operating in Chapter 11 such as employee, vendor, and tenant issues and other similar problems
B220 Employee Benefits/Pensions: Review issues such as severance, retention, 401K coverage and continuance of pension plan
B230 Financing/Cash Collections: Matters under 361, 363 and 364 including cash collateral and secured claims; loan document analysis
B240 Tax Issues: Analyses and advice regarding tax-related issues, including the preservation of net operating loss carry forwards
B250 Real Estate: Review and analysis of real estate-related matters, including purchase agreements and lease provisions (e.g., common area maintenance clauses)
B260 Board of Directors Matters: Preparation of materials for and attendance at Board of Directors meetings; analysis and advice regarding corporate governance issues and review and preparation of corporate documents (e.g., Articles, Bylaws, employment agreements, compensation plans, etc.)
B300 Claims and plan
The B300 codes are used for all work related to claim inquiries and preparing disclosure statements and business plans.
B310 Claims and Administration Objections: Specific claim inquiries; bar date motions; analyses, objections and allowances of claims
B320 Plan and Disclosure Statement (including Business Plan): Formulation, presentation and confirmation; compliance with the plan confirmation order, related orders and rules; disbursement and case closing activities, except those related to the allowance and objections to allowance of claims
B400 Bankruptcy-related advice
All advice, analyses, and consultations related to bankruptcy matters fall under the B400 code set.
B410 General Bankruptcy Advice/Options: Analysis, advice and/or opinions regarding potential bankruptcy related issues, where no bankruptcy case has been filed
B420 Restructurings: Analysis, consultation and drafting in connection with the restructuring of agreements, including financing agreements, where no bankruptcy case has been filed
Counseling
Counseling is one of the broader categories of UTBMS codes. This code set is designed to cover time used by attorneys preparing to provide legal advice. Generally, the counseling ABA task codes do not attribute time to a specific matter. Instead, they serve as a catchall billing code for time spent on research throughout a monthly billing period.
C100 Fact Gathering: All initial inquiries, meetings, and data/information collection related to the assignment
C200 Researching Law: Time spent researching relevant case law or general investigation as well as consultations with experts
C300 Analysis and Advice: Analysis of work performed under C100 and C200 along with providing opinions and advice to client
C400 Third Party Communication: Discussions with third parties such as regulators or parties to contracts with the client
Expense
Expense UTBMS codes help with budget tracking by categorizing types of spending.
E101 Copying
E102 Outside printing
E103 Word processing
E104 Facsimile
E105 Telephone
E106 Online research
E107 Delivery services/messengers
E108 Postage
E109 Local travel
E110 Out-of-town travel
E111 Meals
E112 Court fees
E113 Subpoena fees
E114 Witness fees
E115 Deposition transcripts
E116 Trial transcripts
E117 Trial exhibits
E118 Litigation support vendors
E119 Experts
E120 Private investigators
E121 Arbitrators/mediators
E122 Local counsel
E123 Other professionals
E124 Other
Generally, Expense UTBMS codes are combined with a related activity code. For example, an invoice might include activity code A102 paired with expense code E101. A102 categorizes the time spent researching, while E101 specifies money spent on printing copies of that research.
This code set not only facilitates educated budget planning but also simplifies the process of submitting attorney expenses.
Litigation
ABA litigation codes are broken into five phases and encapsulate the entire litigation process.
L100 Case Assessment, Development, and Administration
L110 Fact Investigation/Development
L120 Analysis/Strategy
L130 Experts/Consultants
L140 Document/File Management
L150 Budgeting
L160 Settlement/Non-Binding ADR
L190 Other Case Assessment, Development and Administration
During the initial stages, L100 codes could be combined with activity UTBMS codes. For example, A106 (Communicate with client) might be paired with L110 or L120 because client communication would help formulate the litigation strategy.
L200 Pre-Trial Pleadings and Motions
L210 Pleading
L220 Preliminary Injunctions/Provisional Remedies
L230 Court Mandated Conferences
L240 Dispositive Motions
L250 Other Written Motions and Submissions
L260 Class Action Certification and Notice
Expense codes often accompany L200 codes, such as E112 (Court fees) associated with filing for class certification (L260) or filing a pleading (L210).
L300 Discovery
L310 Written Discovery
L320 Document Production
L330 Depositions
L340 Expert Discovery
L350 Discovery Motions
L390 Other Discovery
L400 Trial Preparation and Trial
L410 Fact Witnesses
L420 Expert Witnesses
L430 Written Motions and Submissions
L440 Other Trial Preparation and Support
L450 Trial and Hearing Attendance
L460 Post-Trial Motions and Submissions
L470 Enforcement
This phase also calls for the use of expense codes, such as E114 (Witness fees) when interviewing an expert witness (L420).
L500 Appeal
L510 Appellate Motions and Submissions
L520 Appellate Briefs
L530 Oral Argument
L600 e-Discovery
LOC and the ABA ratified the litigation codes to include a sixth phase for an e-Discovery code set. Each parent task code has sub-task codes for more granular tracking. To keep this brief, we’ll list only the parent tasks.
L600 Identification
L610 Preservation
L620 Collection
L630 Processing
L650 Review
L660 Analysis
L670 Production
L680 Presentation
L690 Project management
Project
For non-litigation matters, project codes are used for administrative filings, transactions, and stand-alone projects. The project code set includes eight phases.
P100 Project Administration: All initial administration work such as developing, negotiating, and revising the plan and budget for the matter at hand
P200 Fact Gathering/Due Diligence
Codes within the P200 phase are used for time spent on fact investigation, document retrieval, and preparation of reports with clients. They also cover coordination with third parties related to these activities.
Each P200 UTBMS code designates time spent on fact investigation/due diligence from a specific perspective, such as tax or environmental.
P210 Corporate Review
P220 Tax
P230 Environmental
P240 Real and Personal Property
P250 Employee/Labor
P260 Intellectual Property
P270 Regulatory Reviews
P280 Other
P300–P800 make up the additional codes within this phase.
P300 Structure/Strategy/Analysis: Time spent on analysis done for the purposes of developing the strategy for a project or transaction. This includes all steps taken to create a written outline or description of the strategy
P400 Initial Document Preparation/Filing: Tasks performed to prepare documents and opinions before being sent to third parties. This includes filing documents, related communications with the client, and review of client-generated transaction documentation
P500 Negotiation/Revision/Responses: Time spent negotiating and revising P400 transaction documentation, including all related document review, meetings, and client communications
P600 Completion/Closing: All tasks related to transaction pre-closing and closing, project completion or filing acceptance, such as attendance at closing
P700 Post-Completion/Post Closing: All post-completion or post-closing tasks such as amendments to final documentation and resolution of post-closing issues. Also includes all implementation tasks (e.g., funds held in escrow) and preparation of closing binders (i.e., primarily clerical actions)
P800 Maintenance and Renewal: All tasks related to subsequent maintenance and renewal requirements under the terms of the transaction or project such as monitoring of lease agreements, routine waivers and coordination of UCC requirements
Workers’ compensation
A 2010 ratification defined the workers’ compensation code set. Many tasks include a “Commentary & Practice Tips” subset that shares the same code as the parent task. For example, WC 110 could refer to Fact Investigation/Development or the Commentary & Practice Tips related to that task.
This UTBMS code set includes a total of five phases and 27 ABA task codes. For the sake of brevity, we will provide a high-level description of each phase. It’s important to note that the Workers’ Compensation code set does not include phase-level parent tasks (WC 100, WC 200, WC 300, etc.)
WC 100 phase
All actions related to researching the case matter, strategizing, consulting with experts, and settlements.
WC 110 Fact Investigation/Development
WC 110 Commentary & Practice Tips
WC 120 Analysis/Strategy
WC 120 Commentary & Practice Tips
WC 130 Experts/Consultants
WC 130 Commentary & Practice Tips
WC 150 Budgeting
WC 150 Commentary & Practice Tips
WC 160 Settlement/Resolution
WC 160 Commentary & Practice Tips
WC 180 Alternative Fee Arrangements
WC 200 phase
Time spent preparing and filing pleadings, conferences with judge, and negotiating alternative fee arrangements.
WC 210 Pleadings
WC 210 Commentary & Practice Tips
WC 230 Conferences with Judge
WC 230 Commentary & Practice Tips
WC 280 Alternative Fee Arrangements
WC 300 phase
Time spent on all discovery motions, document production/acquisition, and depositions.
WC 310 Written Discovery
WC 310 Commentary & Practice Tips
WC 320 Document Production/Acquisition
WC 320 Commentary & Practice Tips
WC 330 Depositions
WC 330 Commentary & Practice Tips
WC 334 Deposition Report
WC 340 Expert Discovery
WC 340 Commentary & Practice Tips
WC 350 Discovery Motions
WC 350 Commentary & Practice Tips
WC 360 Discovery On-Site Inspections/Visits
WC 360 Commentary & Practice Tips
WC 380 Alternative Fee Arrangements
WC 400 phase
Time spent preparing for and communicating with witnesses, drafting written motions, and preparing for and attending hearings.
With Onit, you can process invoices using UTBMS codes to help your team better categorize outside counsel activity and track spend at a more granular level. Additionally, you can also configure custom task, activity, and expense codes if your department leverages them.
When invoices are categorized, you can run standard or ad-hoc reports for matter-level comparisons of legal spend by task code, as well as other insights. This insights include views into spend by task for your practice areas or specific vendors. Onit also provides a Spend Dashboard that quickly identifies your top task codes in use, along with information about average rates and how much was billed to each code.
UTBMS codes also allow you to enforce billing guidelines and control spending. You can set limits and create warnings associated with specific codes so that expenses can be automatically approved, rejected, or adjusted… all within a single platform.
Start using UTBMS codes to streamline legal spend management
Stop digging for codes every time a question comes up. This reference guide puts the most important UTBMS and ABA codes in one place so your team can use them quickly and confidently. Download the UTBMS & ABA Codes Reference Guide
Of course, knowing the codes is one thing. Getting your team to use them correctly is another. This checklist shows you exactly how to implement and maintain coding standards across matters and vendors. Get the UTBMS & ABA Codes Implementation Checklist
Accurate UTBMS coding is the foundation of effective legal spend management. When every task and expense is properly categorized, your team gains the visibility it needs to enforce billing guidelines, identify inefficiencies, and make informed decisions about outside counsel spend.
