Category: Legal Operations

Most legal departments can name a dozen manual processes they’d automate tomorrow if they had the resources: an intake form that should route itself, an approval that still moves by email, a certification that gets tracked in a spreadsheet instead of a system of record. 

The idea isn’t the hard part. The build is. 

In a lot of organizations, turning a workflow idea into a working process means submitting a request to IT, waiting for it to reach the top of a queue that legal doesn’t control, and hoping the final product matches what the team actually asked for. For a legal department managing a handful of processes, that delay is annoying. For a legal department managing hundreds of processes across multiple regions and business units, it’s a structural limit on how fast the function can operate. 

When Every Workflow Competes for the Same Developer 

IT-dependent workflow building doesn’t scale with legal’s needs, because legal’s needs and IT’s priorities rarely move at the same pace. A new disclosure requirement, a shift in how a business unit handles vendor onboarding, or a spike in a particular request type can all create an immediate need for a new or updated workflow. But IT teams are managing their own backlog, and legal requests are competing with everything else on it. 

The result is familiar to a lot of legal operations teams: workarounds. Processes stay in email and spreadsheets longer than they should, not because anyone prefers it that way, but because building something better isn’t within the team’s control. That’s one of the common manual habits still holding legal departments back, and it tends to persist until legal has a way to build without waiting. 

What Changes When Legal Can Build Its Own Workflows 

Low-code platforms shift where workflow ownership sits. Instead of writing a specification and handing it to a developer, legal operations teams can configure the workflow directly, adjust it based on how people actually use it, and expand it to new use cases without opening a new project with IT every time. 

That doesn’t remove IT from the picture entirely. Integrations, security requirements, and enterprise-scale deployment still benefit from IT’s involvement. What changes is the day-to-day iteration: legal can stand up a new workflow, test it with a small group, and refine it in days rather than months. 

Onit’s App Catalog and Apptitude are built around that model, and the same logic applies to how legal teams handle inbound requests through a Legal Service Request system: routing work to the right resource automatically, rather than triaging it manually. 

A Real-World Example: ADM 

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), one of the world’s largest agricultural processors and food ingredient providers, faced this challenge at global scale. ADM’s Legal Affairs, Regulatory & Compliance (LARC) department manages a wide portfolio of litigation, regulatory, compliance, and commercial matters across regions, and needed a way to standardize procedures and reduce manual burden without becoming dependent on IT for every change. 

Since adopting Onit in 2015, ADM has continued to expand its use of the platform. Powered by Apptitude, ADM’s low-code, highly configurable model has enabled the LARC team to build hundreds of purpose-built workflows supporting its own function and the broader business. Today, with more than 18,000 users globally, Onit serves as ADM LARC’s system of record and reporting. 

That foundation supports a wide range of use cases: 

• Contract lifecycle automation: NDA intake and auto-creation, integrated with DocuSign, reduced turnaround from weeks to hours by eliminating manual steps. 

• Legal Service Request: Increased transparency for business users and routed requests to the right legal resource automatically. 

• Compliance and risk workflows: Automated processes from conflict-of-interest review to quarterly disclosure certifications. 

• Attorney management and internal approvals: Custom tools for onboarding, budget approval, law firm RFP and preapproval, and engagement letter execution. 

• Bond and insurance certificate processes: Centralized, self-service workflows in place of fragmented manual steps involving multiple parties. 

• Real estate process management: End-to-end tracking from initial need through execution and handoff to lease management. 

ADM also builds in MVP-style iteration, using early usage data to refine each workflow so automation stays aligned with how the business actually works, rather than how it was originally scoped. 

“Having a platform and partnership with Onit has been game-changer for ADM, having the ability to quickly turn ideas into action to eliminate an inefficiency and/or create visibility in a process has allowed us to build credibility with our business partners and other functional colleagues,” said Aaron Van Nice, Vice President, LARC Operational Excellence. 

Building a Workflow Model That Scales 

A few practices separate legal teams that scale automation successfully from those that stall out after the first few workflows: 

• Start with the processes causing the most friction, not the ones that are easiest to build. High-friction, high-volume processes deliver the clearest return and the strongest case for expanding the program. 

• Treat the first version as a starting point, not the final product. Usage data reveals what a workflow needs to actually do, which is rarely identical to how it was first scoped. 

• Keep IT involved where it matters. Integrations, data security, and enterprise rollout still benefit from IT’s expertise, even when day-to-day configuration doesn’t require it. 

• Measure adoption, not just completion. A workflow that’s technically live but rarely used hasn’t solved the underlying problem. 

None of this requires legal to become a technology function. It requires a platform that lets legal operations build, test, and adjust workflows at the pace the business actually needs, which is a theme that shows up across modern legal operations more broadly, not just in workflow automation. 

See the Full Results 

ADM’s LARC department has moved from addressing isolated workflow challenges to supporting enterprise-wide transformation across a global legal function. Read the full ADM customer story to see how the team built and scaled hundreds of automated workflows, and what results followed. 

Legal hold problems rarely start with one dramatic failure. More often, risk builds through smaller process gaps: a custodian list that goes stale, a reminder that goes out late, a preservation issue that isn’t surfaced, or a release that isn’t clearly documented. Individually, those gaps may seem manageable. Together, they can make it harder to demonstrate the reasonable, consistent preservation process Legal intended to follow. 

In a recent Onit webinar on closing the gaps in legal hold processes, the throughline was straightforward: legal holds are rarely managed in one place. Most organizations run some mix of specialized technology and manual process across identifying custodians, tracking HR changes, monitoring preservation status, and reporting. Each handoff between those pieces is a place where something can slip. 

A Useful Frame: The Information Governance Reference Model 

Before getting into where things break down, it’s worth grounding the discussion in a framework that already exists for this. EDRM, the organization behind the Electronic Discovery Reference Model, maintains an Information Governance Reference Model that lays out a cross-functional approach to managing information, including stakeholder alignment, retention decisions, and the ongoing processes that connect them. It’s a useful reminder that legal holds don’t exist in isolation. They sit inside a broader information governance structure that touches Legal, IT, HR, and Records Management alike. 

With that frame in mind, here’s where the hold lifecycle itself tends to break down. 

Where the Process Breaks Down, Stage by Stage 

Identifying custodians. This is the first place data goes stale. People change roles, leave the company, or pick up new responsibilities, and a manual process often doesn’t catch it. Without a way to track this in real time, the custodian list on day one of a hold can already be wrong by day thirty. 

Issuing notice. Instructions vary depending on who is writing them and when. Without a defined template covering purpose, scope, suspension of routine deletion, and confidentiality, notices can end up inconsistent across groups handling similar matters. 

Acknowledgment tracking. Once a notice goes out, Legal needs visibility into whether custodians have received and acknowledged it. In a manual process, those acknowledgments often land in an inbox with no structure behind them. In larger matters where a hold notice might go to hundreds of people, identifying exactly who among them hasn’t responded becomes a real burden, not a minor annoyance. 

Follow-up and escalation. Reminder timing tends to be inconsistent without something automated managing it. Instead of a defined cadence, follow-up often depends on someone remembering to check for non-responses, which is exactly the kind of gap that shows up later if a hold gets challenged. 

Preservation. A hold ultimately has to translate into reasonable steps to preserve potentially relevant information. But preservation activity can sit outside the day-to-day hold workflow, leaving Legal and IT to reconcile status across systems. When preservation requests, status, failures, and follow-up aren’t visible alongside the hold itself, identifying exceptions becomes harder. 

Release and reporting. Releasing a custodian from a hold, and documenting that release, is easy to do inconsistently. Reconstructing who is or isn’t currently subject to a hold, at best, means pulling data from multiple systems. At worst, it’s a fully manual exercise every time someone asks. 

What a Stronger Process Looks Like 

A few foundations show up consistently in a process that holds up under scrutiny: 

• Connection to matter context. The matter explains why a hold exists; the hold addresses what happens next. When hold activity, including notices, acknowledgments, escalations, and releases, stays tied to the matter record, Legal gets a complete view without reconciling separate systems. 

• Clear custodian accountability. Knowing what each custodian is required to do, whether they’ve acknowledged it, and whether they’re actually following through, rather than assuming a notice sent equals a notice actioned. 

• Consistency in notices, reminders, and escalations. The same level of detail and the same cadence applied every time, not dependent on who happens to be running a particular matter. 

• Real visibility into status. Surfacing what’s complete, overdue, or needs attention through alerts, rather than requiring someone to run a report to find out something already went wrong. 

The point of technology in this process is to support it, not replace judgment. Automating notice delivery, acknowledgment tracking, and status alerts doesn’t remove Legal’s role in deciding scope or handling exceptions. It removes the administrative burden that makes those small gaps likely to happen in the first place.

Ask most legal operations leaders what percentage of invoice lines they actually review, and the honest answer is rarely “all of them.” It’s not for lack of diligence. Invoice volume has grown faster than headcount, and something has to give. What usually gives is coverage. 

That’s a bigger problem than it sounds like at first. Every line that doesn’t get substantive review is spend that passes through without anyone confirming it matches the billing guidelines the firm agreed to. Multiply that across a full outside counsel panel, and a meaningful share of legal spend is effectively running on trust rather than verification. 

The Coverage Gap 

The first question worth asking internally is simple: what percentage of invoice lines receive substantive review today? For most departments, the answer isn’t close to 100%. Reviewers triage by invoice size, by vendor, or by whatever catches their attention in a given cycle. That’s a reasonable response to limited capacity, but it means the guidelines a department spent real effort negotiating are only being enforced some of the time. 

The Vendor Comparison Gap 

Uneven coverage doesn’t just mean some spend goes unchecked. It also makes vendor comparisons unreliable. If Firm A’s invoices happened to get closer scrutiny this quarter than Firm B’s, any conclusion about which firm bills more cleanly is confounded by how closely each one was actually reviewed, not just how compliant each one actually is. 

That matters beyond any single invoice cycle. Legal operations teams that want to negotiate rates, rebalance a panel, or make the case for moving work to a different firm need confidence that the underlying data reflects consistent scrutiny across the board, not whichever invoices happened to get a closer look that month. Without that baseline, spend comparisons across the panel are measuring review effort as much as they’re measuring vendor behavior. 

The Visibility Gap 

This compounds both problems above. Without a clear view into what was reviewed, what was flagged, what was adjusted, and what was disputed, leadership is working from incomplete information. It’s harder to answer basic questions that should inform vendor management: which firms consistently comply with billing guidelines, which categories of violations show up most often, and whether the review policy itself is working the way it was designed to. 

Reframing the Value: Coverage and Time, Not Just Savings 

It’s tempting to pitch better invoice review purely on the dollars it can recover. That framing runs into a real limitation: guideline violations tend to get corrected over time as vendor behavior adjusts to closer scrutiny, so a savings number that looks compelling in month one will not hold at the same rate a year later. 

The more durable case is about capacity. First-pass invoice review is repetitive, rules-based work that doesn’t need to consume a reviewer’s day. When that first pass happens across every line, on every invoice, reviewers get back time to spend on the judgment calls that actually require their expertise, whether that’s a genuinely ambiguous billing question or a broader look at outside counsel strategy. Coverage expands without adding headcount, and the resulting data is consistent enough to actually trust when comparing vendors. 

Onit’s Spend Agent is built as an agentic approach to invoice review for exactly this reason: applying billing guidelines across every line of every invoice, so coverage isn’t limited by reviewer capacity and vendor comparisons aren’t distorted by how closely any one invoice happened to get reviewed. 

Coverage is the foundation. Once it’s in place, the next layer of accuracy comes from matter-specific context. For more on how engagement letters and matter-level terms refine what “compliant” actually means for a given piece of work, see Engagement-Aware Invoice Review: Why Matter Context Matters. 

Legal billing guidelines provide an essential baseline for invoice review, but they cannot account for every negotiated rate, fee arrangement or matter-specific exception. Accurate legal invoice review requires both the general guidelines and the engagement terms that apply to the individual matter. 

The distinction matters because billing guidelines establish the department’s policy, while engagement documents capture the commercial agreement for a specific piece of work. An invoice may comply with one and conflict with the other. Reviewers need both sources to determine what the organization actually agreed to pay. 

Without that complete context, reviewers can miss charges that violate the engagement or dispute charges that were expressly permitted. Either outcome weakens spend control and creates avoidable work for Legal Operations and outside counsel. 

What do legal billing guidelines cover and where do they fall short? 

Outside counsel guidelines establish the department-wide rules for legal billing. They define what is billable, how time should be recorded, which expenses are permitted, and what supporting documentation firms must provide. They give legal teams a repeatable standard and help firms understand expectations before invoices arrive. 

That baseline remains important. Onit’s guide to creating and enforcing legal billing guidelines explains how clear requirements improve consistency, transparency and collaboration with outside counsel. 

But a baseline is not the complete agreement for every matter. An engagement may include a negotiated rate, an approved timekeeper, a fixed fee or alternative fee arrangement, a matter budget, or a travel exception. Those terms can change how an invoice should be evaluated for that specific engagement. 

Consider a simple example. A matter-level engagement letter caps a partner’s hourly rate at $850, while the vendor’s general billing guidelines do not reflect that negotiated rate. If the firm submits time at $950 per hour, a review based only on the general guidelines may miss the variance. Spend Agent can apply the matter-level rate agreement, prioritize it over the general guidelines and identify the line item that exceeds the agreed rate. 

For invoice-review purposes, matter-specific terms should take precedence when the organization has documented and designated them to govern that engagement. Reviewing only the general guidelines leaves the process with incomplete context. 

What risks arise when invoice review lacks matter context? 

Missing engagement terms create risk in both directions. 

First, noncompliant charges may be approved. A rate can exceed the amount negotiated for the matter, an unapproved timekeeper can appear on the invoice or a charge can fall outside the agreed fee structure. If the review process sees only the general guidelines, those issues may appear compliant. 

Second, permitted charges may be disputed incorrectly. Pre-approved travel can be flagged under a general restriction, or a fixed-fee invoice can be evaluated as though it were billed hourly. Legal Operations then has to reverse the dispute, explain the mistake and restart the payment process. That creates rework, delays payment and can strain an otherwise productive outside counsel relationship. 

The challenge is not simply finding more potential violations. It distinguishes a true billing issue from an approved exception. A system that flags every deviation without understanding the engagement can create noise instead of control. 

Onit’s AI Center of Excellence tested large language models and experienced legal invoice reviewers against the same billing-review tasks. The top-performing model achieved 92% invoice-level accuracy and 81% line-item accuracy, compared with 72% and 43% for experienced lawyers. The models also completed reviews 50 to 80 times faster. Importantly, the research found that discretionary human judgment improved reviewer accuracy, reinforcing the value of combining automated analysis with human oversight. Read the Better Bill GPT research. 

These findings establish the potential of AI-assisted review, but accuracy still depends on context. A review process cannot consistently apply a negotiated exception if the agreement containing that exception is unavailable to it. 

The goal is not to challenge every possible charge. It is to make the right decision using the agreement that actually governs the work. 

How does engagement-aware invoice review work? 

Engagement-aware invoice review evaluates an invoice against the department’s general legal billing guidelines and the documented terms associated with the matter and vendor. This gives the review process the context needed to recognize negotiated rates, fee arrangements and approved exceptions while maintaining a consistent department-wide baseline. 

Legal teams can strengthen that process by: 

• Identifying where matter-specific billing terms are currently stored 

• Confirming which documents should govern the review when terms conflict 

• Associating engagement documents with the correct matter and vendor 

• Establishing a consistent method for recording approved exceptions 

• Testing review outcomes against representative matters and invoice scenarios 

• Determining where automated action is appropriate and where a person should make the final decision 

Relevant engagement documents can be added to the matter so Spend Agent can review invoices using both matter-level terms and general vendor billing guidelines. When those sources conflict, the designated matter-level terms receive priority. 

The documents must be uploaded and associated with the applicable matter and vendor. Relevant email correspondence is not automatically pulled from a mailbox; it must be captured in a supported document, such as a PDF, and added to the matter. 

This is an important governance control. The review is based on the terms the organization intentionally provides and associates with the engagement, rather than assumptions drawn from unstructured communications elsewhere. It also makes the source behind a decision easier for reviewers to inspect. 

When Spend Agent identifies a line-item violation, Auto Adjustments can calculate a recommended financial adjustment and present the original amount, the issue, the applicable billing guidance and the recommendation together. Organizations can manage this capability by vendor, reflecting the fact that review requirements and outside counsel relationships are not identical across the panel. 

This additional context does not remove human judgment. Legal teams can use Sentry mode when a reviewer should approve or reject a recommended action and Auto mode when automated handling fits the organization’s operating model. This allows teams to expand review capacity while preserving oversight where judgment, invoice value or vendor relationships require it. 

Key takeaways 

• General legal billing guidelines establish the default billing standard. 

• Matter-level engagement documents capture negotiated terms and exceptions that may change how an invoice should be reviewed. 

• Using both sources helps prevent missed violations and incorrect disputes. 

• Engagement context strengthens invoice review without eliminating human oversight. 

Legal invoice review works best when every decision reflects the complete agreement, not just the department-wide default. See how AI, business rules and human judgment can work together in engagement-aware invoice review. Watch The Right Invoice: Rethinking Legal Invoice Review to learn more.

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. 

Connect matter data to spend data. Firms should be measurable across the full engagement, not only on what they billed. This is the same connected-data problem that shows up in vendor management, with the same root cause. 

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. 

See how Unity RFP structures outside counsel selection