Legal Spend
What did we spend on outside counsel last quarter, by matter type?
Updated July 2026
Answering this well requires spend broken out by a fixed set of matter-type categories, not just a quarterly total by firm. Build the categories once, code every invoice and matter to one, and total fees against case volume and stage within each category. Done as a structure rather than a report, the same question next quarter is a read, not a new spreadsheet.
Why is spend by matter type hard to answer on demand?
Because most invoice systems code to a firm and a matter, not to a consistent matter-type category a general counsel can total across the whole portfolio. Answering the question usually means exporting invoices, mapping each matter to a category by hand, and rebuilding the same spreadsheet every quarter. The work repeats because the categorization was never captured once as a structure.
The fix is not more reporting. It is deciding on a fixed set of matter-type categories once, coding every open and closed matter to one, and letting that structure carry forward automatically instead of being rebuilt each quarter by whoever draws the assignment.
What does a matter-type spend breakdown actually look like?
A framework of categories, each carrying fee spend, case volume, and average cost per matter, not a wall of individual invoices. Products, auto and trucking, employment, premises, and professional liability are common categories in an insurance or corporate defense book. The value is comparability: once every matter carries one of these tags, this quarter's fee total in each category is a direct read, comparable to last quarter's.
| Matter type | What to track | Why it matters to a general counsel |
|---|---|---|
| Products liability | Fee spend, open case count, average spend per matter | Often the highest per-matter cost; flags whether spend tracks complexity |
| Auto and trucking | Fee spend, cycle time, settlement timing | High-volume category where cycle time drives most of the cost |
| Employment | Fee spend, case volume, outcome type | Volume-driven category where guideline enforcement moves the number most |
| Premises and general liability | Fee spend, venue mix, case volume | Cost concentrates by venue more than by case type |
| Professional and specialty lines | Fee spend, firm specialization, case volume | Lower volume, higher rate; watch for a mismatch between complexity and staffing |
These are illustrative categories, not a specific book's dollar figures. The categories that matter for your quarterly answer are the ones that match how your claims or matters are already organized.
How do you keep this current instead of rebuilding it every quarter?
By coding the category once, at matter intake, rather than reconstructing it from invoices after the fact. When every matter carries a matter-type tag from the start, fee data flowing in from e-billing already sorts into the right bucket, and a quarterly total by category becomes a read of structured data instead of a categorization project repeated every three months.
- Fix the matter-type categories once, matching how your claims or legal team already thinks about the book.
- Tag every matter with its category at intake, not after the invoices start arriving.
- Let e-billing spend data flow into the tagged matter, so fee totals roll up by category automatically.
- Review the breakdown each quarter as a read, adjusting categories only when the book itself changes.
What should a general counsel actually do with the breakdown?
Use it to ask better questions, not just to report a number. A category running hotter than its case volume justifies may signal mis-staffed firms or cases settling late. A category with low volume but high average spend may need a specialist panel rather than your general defense firms. The breakdown is a diagnostic starting point for where to apply the spend levers, not the end of the exercise.
This connects directly to the levers that actually move spend: firm performance measurement, guideline enforcement, and early resolution of ripe cases. A matter-type breakdown tells you where to point those levers first, the categories where spend is rising faster than volume or complexity explains, rather than applying the same fix evenly across a book that behaves differently by category.
Common questions
What matter-type categories should we use for the breakdown?
Use whatever categories your claims or legal team already thinks in, rather than importing a generic list. Most insurance and corporate defense books sort cleanly into products liability, auto and trucking, employment, premises and general liability, and professional or specialty lines, but the right list depends on your actual exposure. The goal is a fixed, small set of categories every matter can be tagged with at intake, not a granular taxonomy that requires a judgment call on every file. Once the categories are fixed and every matter carries one, the quarterly breakdown becomes a total, not a project. Revisit the category list only when the underlying book changes, not every reporting cycle.
Should the breakdown include indemnity and settlement spend, or just fees?
Both, if you want the full picture, because fees are typically a minority of total cost. Industry data made available to CaseGlide puts legal fees and expenses at 23% of total litigation program cost, with indemnity and settlement making up the other 77%. A matter-type breakdown that only totals outside counsel fees will show you where the invoices are, but not where the real dollars are moving. If your data allows it, pair the fee total in each category with average settlement value and case volume, so a category can show high fees and low settlement cost, or the reverse, instead of one number standing in for the whole picture.
Legal budget visibility→How often should we run this breakdown, quarterly or more often?
Quarterly is a reasonable cadence for a formal review, but the underlying data should be current continuously, not assembled fresh each time. If matter-type tagging and fee data are structured as they arrive, a quarterly breakdown is a snapshot pulled from a live record, and nothing stops you from checking it monthly or the moment a category looks off. The mistake to avoid is treating the quarterly report as the only point the data gets organized, because that turns a read into a project every time and guarantees the number is already a quarter stale by the time anyone sees it.
Can this breakdown tell us if a specific firm is overbilling a matter type?
It points you at where to look, though the diagnosis needs a firm-level cut on top of the matter-type cut. If a category's spend per matter is climbing faster than its case volume or complexity explains, that is the signal to break the category down further by firm and compare cost per case and cycle time across firms handling similar matters. The matter-type breakdown surfaces the category worth investigating; comparing firms within that category is what tells you whether one firm is the driver or the whole category is simply getting harder.
How to measure defense attorney performance→CaseGlide is the litigation intelligence platform for Fortune 500 legal departments and insurance claims organizations. It structures live litigation data from defense counsel into executive decisions: reducing defense spend, settling the right cases sooner, and shrinking litigated claim volume.
Next step · See it on your docket
See what your litigation portfolio is telling you
A 30 minute walkthrough on your own docket. No slides, no committee.