Customer transparency commitments can expose limits in how shared work is measured.
A defensible reporting method must balance precision, operational burden, and what customers can actually validate.
Who you’d be doing this for
“If the report can’t explain the matter cost, I can’t defend it internally.”
Suresh Desai · Chief Legal Operations Officer
Oversees outside-counsel and technology spending across a corporate legal department.
What is at stake
Only 62% of billed activity can be traced to a matter, against the 95% threshold just signed. You have to pick an allocation method you can defend, knowing the machine-made classifications need paid human checking.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- customer transparency vs. close-cycle burden
- classification coverage vs. verified evidence
- standardized vendor model vs. workflow-specific flexibility
- contract deadline vs. durable controls
Why Harvey
At Harvey, this can matter when legal organizations need clear evidence of how matter-specific work was supported.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 17 more at Harvey, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.