Establish matter-level cost attribution for renewals
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.
“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 pulls against what
- customer transparency vs. close-cycle burden
- classification coverage vs. verified evidence
- standardized vendor model vs. workflow-specific flexibility
- contract deadline vs. durable controls
What is at stake
A contractual transparency requirement cannot be met with the current pooled model. The chosen allocation method will shape reporting, close controls, and customer trust for future renewals
Why Harvey
At Harvey, this can matter when legal organizations need clear evidence of how matter-specific work was supported.
Written for
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.