Legal spend

Skill panaversity/agentfactory-business-plugins/legal-ops/skills/legal-spend

Marketplace of domain-specific plugins for AI agents (Cowork, Claude Code, OpenClaw). Build autonomous business workflows for finance, banking, legal operations, and sales using modular agent skills and commands.

Install

npx -y skills add panaversity/agentfactory-business-plugins --skill legal-spend

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Legal spend analytics, anomaly detection, and benchmarking. Analyses outside counsel invoices by matter type, law firm, and business unit. Flags billing anomalies and produces quarterly spend reports with rate benchmarking against market data.

SKILL.md

5.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Legal Spend -- Analytics, Anomaly Detection, and Benchmarking

DATA SOURCES (connect via MCP)

Accounts payable system (invoice data)
Matter management system (matter codes, descriptions, status)
E-billing system (if deployed: Brightflag, Legal Tracker, eBillingHub)
Budget system (approved matter budgets)

ANALYSIS DIMENSIONS

By Matter Type:

Transactional (M&A, financing, commercial contracts)
Litigation and disputes
Regulatory and compliance
Employment
IP prosecution and licensing
General corporate / governance

By Law Firm / Provider:

Total spend per firm
Effective blended rate (total spend / total hours)
Budget vs. actual variance per matter
Write-off rate (billed vs. collected)
Billing realisation rate

By Business Unit:

Which business units generate the most legal spend?
Spend per GBP/USD of revenue by business unit
Ratio of internal legal cost vs. external legal cost

ANOMALY DETECTION RULES -- FLAG FOR REVIEW IF:

Invoice total exceeds matter budget by >20% without documented explanation
Effective hourly rate >15% above agreed rates without written authorisation
Invoice includes time entries for >12 hours in a single day
Invoice submitted >90 days after work performed
Same task described in multiple time entries across consecutive days (potential duplication)
Significant increase in billings in a matter's final month (common pattern before matter close -- always review)
Paralegal or trainee time billed at associate rates
Multiple partners billing to the same low-complexity matter
Research time exceeds 30% of total matter hours on a well-established area of law (possible training at client's expense)
Block billing (single time entry covering multiple tasks without breakdown) -- request itemisation before payment approval

BENCHMARKING COMPARISON METHOD

To compare firm rates against market:

Collect agreed rates from each panel firm (engagement letter / rate card)
Calculate effective blended rate per firm: total fees / total hours
Compare effective rate against benchmark reference points (below)
Flag any firm where effective rate exceeds benchmark by >20%
For each flagged firm, check: matter complexity, seniority mix, outcomes
Present comparison to GC with context -- do not draw conclusions without understanding matter complexity and outcomes

Rate comparison output:

Firm	Agreed Rate	Effective Rate	Benchmark	Variance	Flag
[X]	GBP [X]/hr	GBP [X]/hr	GBP [X]	[+/-X%]	[Y/N]

BENCHMARK REFERENCE POINTS (general; update with current market surveys)

UK (London) Senior Associate -- Magic Circle: GBP 450-650/hr UK (London) Senior Associate -- Silver Circle/Top50: GBP 300-450/hr UK (Regional) Senior Associate: GBP 200-350/hr US (NY/CA) Senior Associate -- AmLaw 100: USD 700-1,100/hr In-house equivalent (all-in, UK mid-level): GBP 120,000-180,000/yr

OUTPUT FORMAT

LEGAL SPEND ANALYSIS -- [Period]

SUMMARY Total spend: GBP [X] vs. prior period: [+/-X%] vs. budget: [+/-X%]

BY FIRM (top 5) [Firm] GBP [X] Eff. rate: GBP [X]/hr vs. budget: [+/-X%]

ANOMALIES FLAGGED: [N] [Item] -- [Anomaly description] -- [Recommended action]

============================================ NOTE: Billing anomalies require discussion with the relevant partner before any payment dispute is raised.

OUTPUT FORMAT: QUARTERLY SPEND REPORT

QUARTERLY LEGAL SPEND REPORT -- Q[N] [Year]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Prepared: [date]
Period: [start date] -- [end date]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Total external spend: GBP [X] (vs Q[N-1]: [+/-X%])
Total matters active: [N]
Budget utilisation: [X%] of annual budget consumed YTD
Top spending area: [matter type]

SPEND BY MATTER TYPE:
| Matter Type       | Spend     | % of Total | vs Prior Q |
| ----------------- | --------- | ---------- | ---------- |
| [each type]       | GBP [X]   | [X%]       | [+/-X%]    |

PANEL FIRM PERFORMANCE:
| Firm  | Spend     | Eff. Rate | Budget Var | Anomalies |
| ----- | --------- | --------- | ---------- | --------- |
| [X]   | GBP [X]   | GBP [X]   | [+/-X%]    | [N]       |

ANOMALIES REQUIRING REVIEW: [N]
[list with recommended actions]

FORECAST:
Projected annual spend: GBP [X] (based on YTD run rate)
vs annual budget: [+/-X%]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
ALL OUTPUTS REQUIRE REVIEW BY LICENSED ATTORNEY BEFORE ACTION

NEVER DO THESE

NEVER raise a formal billing dispute with a law firm without GC authorisation
NEVER characterise attorney work as inappropriate without legal review of context
NEVER share firm-specific spend benchmarking externally without GC and firm consent
NEVER use spend data to make personnel decisions about external counsel without first consulting GC