For Head of Litigation

Your best firms
should earn
the work.

The lowest bid wins only 48% of the time on PERSUIT. Team quality, track record, and approach dominate. What PERSUIT adds is the infrastructure to document why you chose who you chose — and the leverage to hold them to what they promised. The transition to value-based pricing isn't theoretical. It's a ten-year movement backed by data from $22B+ in actual legal proposals — and the world's most sophisticated litigation teams are already part of it.

See How It Works
You
Securities class action, Southern District of New York. Need a team by next week. Budget matters.
Persi
I've identified 6 firms with SDNY securities class action experience. Based on comparable matters, expect fee proposals in the $1.2M–$2.1M range.
Persi's shortlist — 6 firms matched
Quinn EmanuelSecurities Lit.$1.8M ↓ 22% vs. benchmark
Wachtell LiptonSDNY Expert$2.1M ↓ 8% vs. benchmark
Bernstein LitowitzPlaintiff-Side$1.2M ↓ 35% vs. benchmark
48%
Of the time the lowest bid wins — quality and team dominate
50%
Of matters go over budget — by an average of 50% when they do
1 in 4
Buyers report no value from firms charging premium rates
6.7%
AFA budget overrun rate vs 24% hourly — structure protects both sides
The Hard Questions

What every litigator asks. What the data says.

This will damage our relationships with our trial firms.
The firms you trust most are the ones who benefit from transparency. They know their value — and a structured process lets them demonstrate it. 4,800+ firms actively submit Requests on PERSUIT, including every AmLaw 100 firm. The firms that resist structured process are often the ones you should be scrutinising more, not less.
This will turn everything into a race to the bottom on price.
The data says otherwise. The lowest bid wins only 48% of the time on PERSUIT. Team quality, approach, and track record dominate the majority of selection decisions. What PERSUIT adds is the benchmark data to know whether the price you're paying is defensible — not a mandate to choose the cheapest option.
Our litigation is too complex and bespoke for a platform.
This is the most common thing we hear — and every customer said it before signing. Every litigation matter type across every industry has been run through PERSUIT, including multi-jurisdictional disputes, regulatory investigations, and high-stakes commercial arbitrations. That's how we reached $22B+ in legal market data.
I need to move fast when a matter lands. There's no time for process.
A structured Request on PERSUIT takes hours, not weeks. 200+ pre-built litigation templates mean you're not starting from scratch. And for panel matters, direct award with documented rationale is an option — you keep the speed, you add the audit trail.
The Real Problem

You're accountable for cost
and quality. Both.

For a long time, Heads of Litigation could treat cost and quality as separate conversations. Quality was yours. Cost was someone else's problem until it wasn't.

That's over. The CFO wants predictability. The GC wants documented justification for every firm selection. And you're still expected to win.

PERSUIT doesn't ask you to compromise on quality to control cost. It gives you the data to demonstrate that you haven't — and the tools to make sure the firms you trust deliver on what they agree to.

1 in 4
Buyers report no value from firms charging premium rates. Georgetown Law / Thomson Reuters 2026 State of the US Legal Market. The value gap is real — and it's getting harder to ignore when you're defending spend to the board.
The Instinct Problem
You award work based on relationships and past experience. So does everyone else.
That's not wrong. But it means you have no documented rationale when the GC or CFO asks why you chose firm A over firm B — or why the matter cost 40% more than estimated.
The Scope Problem
Litigation budgets are set at matter open. Then scope shifts. Then invoices arrive.
75% of hourly matters have no budget at all. Of those that do, half go over — by an average of 50%. By the time you know, the money is spent.
The AI Problem
Firms are using AI to work faster. Most are still billing hourly for the time they're saving.
The Georgetown report found firms investing in AI to automate work previously written off. 90% of that work is still billed hourly. Without structured fee arrangements, the efficiency gains go to the firm, not you.
The Performance Problem
You think your panel performs. But which firms actually deliver value — and which coast on the relationship?
Without structured matter data, panel decisions are based on instinct, relationships, and whoever lobbied hardest. The best firms deserve to win on merit. PERSUIT makes that possible.
The Market Reality

Paying premium rates doesn't
guarantee premium results.

The 2026 Georgetown / Thomson Reuters report on the US legal market confirmed what many litigation leaders already suspected. The gap between what firms charge and the value they deliver is widening. Three forces are driving it — and all three favour in-house teams who own the commercial conversation.

01
The Business Model Conflict
Firms are investing in AI to work faster. 90% of spend is still hourly. When AI automates work that used to be billed line by line, the efficiency goes to the firm's margin — unless you've negotiated fixed or phased fee arrangements that capture the benefit on your side.
02
The Demand Migration
Moderately complex litigation work is moving to smaller firms charging up to 40% less than AmLaw Top 50 equivalents — with comparable quality for the right matter type. Blindly defaulting to top-tier firms for work that doesn't require them is a cost decision disguised as a quality one.
03
The Value Gap
1 in 4 buyers report no value from firms charging premium rates. That number is large enough to ask the question: which firms on your panel are delivering, and which are coasting? PERSUIT turns that from a feeling into a finding.
How PERSUIT Works in Practice

From first call to final invoice.
Every step connected.

This is what the lifecycle of a significant litigation matter looks like on PERSUIT — from the moment it's raised to the data it generates for the next one.

Matter Intake & Routing
Structured intake from day one. Matter type, risk level, complexity — categorised and routed to the right tier before a firm is even called.
Impact
No more reflexive calls to the same firm. The routing decision is documented and defensible before work starts.
Sourcing — Panel or Competitive Request
For panel work: direct award with documented rationale. For significant matters: structured Request in hours — scope, team, approach, and price from multiple firms, side by side against market benchmarks.
Impact
48% of the time, the lowest bid doesn't win. Quality, team, and approach dominate. But now you have the documentation that shows why — and the benchmark data that shows the market rate.
Pricing — Scope & Fee Structure
Phased budgets. AFA structure where appropriate. Team and rates locked before work starts. Scope changes flagged as they happen, not discovered at invoice time.
Impact
AFA matters go over budget 4x less than hourly matters. Phased budgets make overruns visible early — when you can still manage them.
e-billing — Live WIP & Spend Control
Continuous WIP from firm billing systems. Agreed rates enforced automatically. BillClear catches billing issues before submission. Budget tracked live against actuals.
Impact
You see the overrun developing at 15%, not 140%. The conversation with the firm happens early, while you can still manage scope.
Data — Performance & Benchmarks
Matter outcomes, billing accuracy, guideline compliance, budget variance — tracked per firm and per matter type. Every completed matter feeds benchmark data for the next negotiation.
Impact
Panel reviews run on evidence. Firm conversations happen with data. The best firms win more work on merit.
Tuesday Morning

Your day, with and without PERSUIT.

The specific decisions litigation leaders face — and what changes when you're negotiating with data instead of instinct.

Without PERSUIT
With PERSUIT
9:00am — New securities class action

Matter came in Friday. You know three firms who do this work. You pick the one you used last time. No structured view of their performance on comparable matters. No rate benchmark for this matter type. No documented rationale if anyone asks later. You call it judgment. It is — but judgment without data.

9:00am — New securities class action

You open a targeted Request to four qualified firms. PERSUIT pre-populates matter type, jurisdiction, panel eligibility. Persi surfaces benchmark pricing for this matter scale. By Tuesday: structured responses, comparable experience, competitive pricing. You pick the best firm for this matter. You can document exactly why.

11:30am — Budget review with CFO

Three matters are running over budget. For two of them, you knew weeks ago — but the budget was a single number at inception, WIP wasn't visible, and by the time the invoice landed you were already over. The CFO wants to know why Legal can't forecast. You don't have a satisfying answer.

11:30am — Budget review with CFO

Phased budgets set at matter inception. WIP visible in real time. You flagged the overrun risk three weeks ago — before the CFO meeting, not at it. One matter was rescoped. One has a documented change-of-scope approval. The CFO meeting is a conversation, not a post-mortem.

3:00pm — AFA negotiation

Your primary firm wants to move a major matter to a $2.2M fixed fee. You have no idea if that's reasonable. You negotiate off instinct. You agree to $2.1M. Six months later you find out comparable matters settled around $1.6M.

3:00pm — AFA negotiation

You open the benchmark before the call. Securities class actions at this complexity: median AFA $1.55M, 75th percentile $1.95M. The firm's $2.2M ask is above market. You counter at $1.75M with the data visible. You settle at $1.8M. That's $300K below what you would have agreed to without the benchmark.

You're making multi-million dollar decisions with the data quality of a gut feeling.

31% average savings with reverse auction on litigation matters. The first time most teams run competitive process, they're surprised how far the market rate is from what they've been paying.

See what PERSUIT looks like
for your litigation practice.

A direct conversation about how PERSUIT works for litigation teams. No deck. No pitch.

Request a Demo See the full platform