Systems and methods for analysis of legal service providers and comparative unit costs or ratio costs

• US 8,554,603 B1
• Filed: 03/11/2011
• Issued: 10/08/2013
• Est. Priority Date: 03/12/2010
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: The Counsel Management Group LLC
• Original Assignee: The Counsel Management Group LLC
• Inventors: Paulmann, Frederick Henry
• Primary Examiner(s): Gart, Matthew
• Assistant Examiner(s): Danzig, Reva R
• Application Number:
  US13/046,213
• Time in Patent Office: 942 Days
• Field of Search: 705/7, 705/8, 705/35, 705/30, 705/7.13, 705/7.29, 705/7.37, 705/34, 705/40, 717/103
• US Class Current: 705/7.35
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0201 Market modelling; Market analysis; Collecting market data
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/04 Billing or invoicing
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 50/18 Legal services

Abstract

Systems and methods for analyzing legal service providers and unit or ratio costs are provided. Billing data from legal services providers is analyzed to identify common tasks based on task codes. The common tasks are then analyzed to determine a unit cost or ratio cost for the tasks or a ratio cost for the tasks compared to the total costs for a matter. Analysis constraints are applied to the billing data to generate a cost model, which can be output in a variety of different graphical formats. This output, which identifying at least some of the total matter costs on a unit cost or ratio cost basis, allows for comparison of legal services provided by a number of different legal services providers. It also allows for comparing price quotes from a number of legal services providers against each other and against historical cost information.

Claims

1. A method, comprising:

receiving, by a processor, a set of billing data for legal services performed for a plurality of matters, the billing data including a plurality of time entries and associated task codes;

identifying, by the processor, a first group of common tasks among the plurality of time entries based on the associated task codes;

calculating, by the processor, a set of costs for the plurality of matters, wherein the set of costs includes, for each of the plurality of matters, a cost for the first group of common tasks, wherein the cost is a unit cost or ratio cost, and wherein for each of the plurality of matters the unit cost is calculated by dividing a total cost for the first group of common tasks for a particular matter of the plurality of matters by a number of units for the particular matter of the plurality of matters, and the ratio cost is calculated by dividing the total cost for at least the first group of the common tasks for a particular matter of the plurality of matters by a total cost of the particular matter of the plurality of matters;

receiving, by the processor, analysis constraints;

selecting from the set of costs for the plurality of matters, by the processor based on the analysis constraints, the calculated costs for a subset of the plurality of matters;

generating, by the processor, a cost model based on the selected costs for the first group of common tasks;

outputting, by the processor to an output device, the cost model;

receiving, by the processor, a set of price quotes for a service from a plurality of legal services providers;

sorting, by the processor, the received price quotes;

comparing, by the processor, the sorted price quotes with the cost model; and

outputting, by the processor to the output device, the comparison of the sorted price quotes with the cost model.

2. The method of claim 1, comprising:

receiving, by the processor, a selection of one of the legal services provider'"'"'s price quotes as a winning price quote;

receiving, by the processor, billing data from the legal services provider;

analyzing, by the processor, the billing data against the service provider'"'"'s price quote; and

outputting, by the processor to the output device, a comparison of performance based on the billing data against the service provider'"'"'s price quote.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the outputted performance comparison indicates performance of the service provider on a per-task basis.

4. The method of claim 2, wherein the outputted performance comparison indicates a cost progress of each component against scheduling projections.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the analysis constraints are usage patterns, a source of the billing data or a type of work associated with the billing data.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the usage patterns are individual usage patterns, organizational usage patterns, blinded market usage patterns for a particular industry or blinded market usage patterns across a plurality of industries.

7. The method of claim 5, wherein the source of the billing data is a user'"'"'s active matters, a user'"'"'s historical matters or a blinded market sampling of similar active or historical matters of other users.

9. The method of claim 1, comprising:

receiving, by the processor, a plurality of evaluation scores for the plurality of service providers;

receiving, by the processor from each of the plurality of service providers, experience and outcome profiles for matters in a plurality of types of work;

receiving, by the processor, submitted budgets and actual budgets for each of the plurality of service providers;

analyzing, by the processor, the evaluation scores, experience and outcome profiles, and submitted and actual budgets in order to generate a score for each of the plurality of service providers; and

outputting, by the processor to the output device, a visual indication of the generated scores for each of the plurality of service providers.

12. The method of claim 1, comprising:

analyzing, by the processor, the billing data to identify incorrect time entries; and

correcting, by the processor, the identified time entries.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein the incorrect time entries are identified by comparing the associated task codes with a narrative associated with individual time entries.

14. The method of claim 1, comprising:

receiving, by the processor, billing rates for a plurality of professionals at the plurality of legal service providers, the billing rates including at least two different billing rates for at least some of the plurality of professionals;

calculating, by the processor, a compound annual growth rate for the billing rates of the at least some of the plurality of professionals; and

outputting, by the processor, a comparison of the compound annual growth rate for each of the plurality of legal service providers.

29. The method of claim 1, wherein the ratio cost for a particular matter of the plurality of matters is calculated by dividing a sum of the total cost for the first group of common tasks for the particular matter and a total cost for a second group of common tasks for the particular matter by the total cost of the particular matter.

8. A method, comprising:

receiving, by a processor, a set of billing data for legal services for a plurality of matters, the billing data including a plurality of time entries and associated task codes;

identifying, by the processor, a first group of common tasks among the plurality of time entries based on the associated task codes;

calculating, by the processor, a set of costs for the plurality of matters, wherein the set of costs includes, for each of the plurality of matters, a cost for the first group of common tasks, wherein the cost is a unit cost or ratio cost;

receiving, by the processor, analysis constraints that include at least a type of work associated with the billing data, wherein the type of work associated with the billing data includes a nature of the project based on subject matter, the scope of the project based on volume of work to be performed, scope of the project based on complexity of the work to be performed or an extent of specialized expertise or experience required;

selecting from the set of costs for the plurality of matters, by the processor based on the analysis constraints, the calculated costs for a subset of the plurality of matters;

generating, by the processor, a cost model based on the selected costs for the first group of common tasks;

outputting, by the processor to an output device, the cost model;

receiving, by the processor, a set of price quotes for a service from a plurality of legal services providers;

sorting, by the processor, the received price quotes; and

comparing, by the processor, the sorted price quotes with the cost model; and

outputting, by the processor to the output device, the comparison of the sorted price quotes with the cost model.

10. A method, comprising:

receiving, by a processor, a set of billing data for legal services for a plurality of matters, the billing data including a plurality of time entries and associated task codes;

identifying, by the processor, a first group of common tasks among the plurality of time entries based on the associated task codes;

calculating, by the processor, a set of costs for the plurality of matters, wherein the set of costs includes, for each the plurality of matters, a cost for the first group of common tasks, wherein the cost is a unit cost or ratio cost;

receiving, by the processor, analysis constraints;

selecting from the set of costs for the plurality of matters, by the processor based on the analysis constraints, the calculated costs for a subset of the plurality of matters;

generating, by the processor, a cost model based on the selected costs for the first group of common tasks;

outputting, by the processor to an output device, the cost model;

receiving, by the processor, a set of price quotes for a service from a plurality of legal services providers;

sorting, by the processor, the received price quotes;

comparing, by the processor, the sorted price quotes with the cost model;

outputting, by the processor to the output device, the comparison of the sorted price quotes with the cost model; and

determining, by the processor, a unit cost variance between the received price quotes by calculating a sum of a billing rate variance, a seniority variance and an efficiency variance.

11. The method of claim 10, wherein the billing rate variance is calculated by comparing rate totals for identical sample subset teams across the received price quotes, the seniority variance is calculated by comparing an impact attributable to different staffing patterns with respect to a same task across the price quotes and the efficiency variance is calculated by dividing a unit cost by a corresponding blended hourly rate to generate an assumed number of hours per unit and then comparing the assumed number of hours per unit among the price quotes.

15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:

receive a set of billing data for legal services performed for a plurality of matters, the billing data including a plurality of time entries and associated task codes;

identify a first group of common tasks among the plurality of time entries based on the associated task codes;

calculate a set of costs for the plurality of matters, wherein the set of costs includes, for each of the plurality of matters, a cost for the first group of common tasks, wherein the cost is a unit cost or ratio cost, and wherein for each of the plurality of matters the unit cost is calculated by dividing a total cost for the first group of common tasks for a particular matter of the plurality of matters by a number of units for the particular matter of the plurality of matters, and the ratio cost is calculated by dividing the total cost for at least the first group of the common tasks for a particular matter of the plurality of matters by a total cost of the particular matter of the plurality of matters;

receive analysis constraints;

select, from the set of costs for the plurality of matters, the calculated costs for a subset of the plurality of matters based on the analysis constraints;

generate a cost model based on the selected costs for the first group of common tasks;

output the cost model to an output device;

receive a set of price quotes for a service from a plurality of legal services providers;

sorting the received price quotes;

compare the sorted price quotes with the cost model; and

output the comparison of the sorted price quotes with the cost model to the output device.

16. The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 15, wherein execution of the instruction stored on the computer-readable medium cause the processor to:

receive a selection of one of the legal services provider'"'"'s price quotes as a winning price quote;

receive billing data from the legal services provider;

analyze the billing data against the service provider'"'"'s price quote; and

output a comparison of performance based on the billing data against the service provider'"'"'s price quote to the output device.

17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the outputted performance comparison indicates performance of the service provider on a per-task basis.

18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the outputted performance comparison indicates a cost progress of each component against scheduling projections.

19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the analysis constraints are usage patterns, a source of the billing data or a type of work associated with the billing data.

20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the usage patterns are individual usage patterns, organizational usage patterns, blinded market usage patterns for a particular industry or blinded market usage patterns across a plurality of industries.

21. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the source of the billing data is a user'"'"'s active matters, a user'"'"'s historical matters or a blinded market sampling of similar active or historical matters of other users.

22. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the type of work associated with the billing data includes a nature of the project based on subject matter, the scope of the project based on volume of work to be performed, scope of the project based on complexity of the work to be performed or an extent of specialized expertise or experience required.

23. The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 15, wherein execution of the instruction stored on the computer-readable medium cause the processor to:

receive a plurality of evaluation scores for the plurality of service providers;

receive experience and outcome profiles for matters in a plurality of types of work from each of the plurality of service providers;

receive submitted budgets and actual budgets for each of the plurality of service providers;

analyze the evaluation scores, experience and outcome profiles, and submitted and actual budgets in order to generate a score for each of the plurality of service providers; and

output a visual indication of the generated scores for each of the plurality of service providers to the output device.

24. The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 15, wherein execution of the instruction stored on the computer-readable medium cause the processor to:

determine a unit cost variance between the received price quotes by calculating a sum of a billing rate variance, a seniority variance and an efficiency variance.

25. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 24, wherein the billing rate variance is calculated by comparing rate totals for identical sample subset teams across the received price quotes, the seniority variance is calculated by comparing an impact attributable to different staffing patterns with respect to a same task across the price quotes and the efficiency variance is calculated by dividing a unit cost by a corresponding blended hourly rate to generate an assumed number of hours per unit and then comparing the assumed number of hours per unit among the price quotes.

26. The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 15, wherein execution of the instruction stored on the computer-readable medium cause the processor to:

analyze the billing data to identify incorrect time entries; and

correct the identified time entries.

27. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the incorrect time entries are identified by comparing the associated task codes with a narrative associated with individual time entries.

28. The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 15, wherein execution of the instruction stored on the computer-readable medium cause the processor to:

receive billing rates for a plurality of professionals at the plurality of legal service providers, the billing rates including at least two different billing rates for at least some of the plurality of professionals;

calculate a compound annual growth rate for the billing rates of the at least some of the plurality of professionals; and

output a comparison of the compound annual growth rate for each of the plurality of legal service providers.

30. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the ratio cost for a particular matter of the plurality of matters is calculated by dividing a sum of the total cost for the first group of common tasks for the particular matter and a total cost for a second group of common tasks for the particular matter by the total cost of the particular matter.