Measuring decision latency in matter intake

Question and scope

The study measures the record and the handoff, not the professional judgment of supervising attorney or the legal outcome of the work. The population should include cases handled by every owner and channel in scope, not only the queue with the cleanest records. Write the primary measure and one supporting measure; a measure without a denominator or observation window is not ready. Keep the protocol with the matter intake batch so the next reviewer can see what was measured. When a value is missing, record the missing state and the reason instead of leaving an empty field in the extract. The October 28 matter intake exception log should show the reason code, owner, and release decision. The protocol does not estimate an industry benchmark; it produces a local description that law firm administrators can review. State how duplicate requests are identified and whether they are merged, linked, or counted separately. If a definition changes during the review, keep the earlier classification and apply the new rule only to later cases. Name the population, the observation window, and the systems included in the extraction. If the evidence is sensitive, record the approved reference and access path rather than copying the content. The October 28 matter intake recovery test should record the restore point and the conflict check cycle result.

Population and unit

Record how duplicate requests were matched, merged, or kept separate, because that choice changes the denominator. Exclude cases opened outside the window only when the exclusion rule was written before collection. Define how a case that waits for client contact is counted: paused, open, or excluded, but not silently dropped. Record the extraction date and the queue filter so another reviewer can reproduce the population count. Record this decision in the study log with the case key, the review date, and the person who approved the classification. The October 28 control note for Legal Services Offshore should name the matter intake source, the owner, and the next review time. Test the unit definition on a case that crosses owners, a case that is still open, and a case that was reopened. Report the number of cases that could not be classified and the reason, rather than forcing them into a category. If the definition of privilege exceptions changes, keep the old and new values side by side for the transition period. Record the extraction date and the queue filter so another reviewer can reproduce the population count. If the source changes after the observation, preserve the earlier value and add a dated note instead of replacing it. The October 28 evidence trail for matter intake should show the source version and the vendor decision.

Definitions and measures

If the definition of completion changes, keep the old and new rules side by side for the transition period. Keep the original text and the coded value together so a reviewer can check the classification. A completeness measure should name the required fields and the evidence state; an overall percentage is not reproducible. Define whether the measure counts requests, cases, or destination updates, and use that unit consistently. Use the same note in the case file and the study extract; do not create a second version in a personal document. The matter intake review at Legal Services Offshore should state whether the document index was current on October 28. Name the owner who can declare a case complete, and record that role in the data dictionary. Test the data dictionary on a small set of cases and revise ambiguous fields before the main sample. A duplicate request is a separate intake event even when it points to the same underlying need; record the link. If two reviewers disagree, preserve both classifications until the definition is clarified. Keep the measurement note short enough to read with the case and specific enough to support the reported matter reopen rate. The October 28 matter intake note should distinguish a missing privilege log from a confirmed negative.

Data dictionary and evidence

Mark missing, unavailable, and confirmed negative values separately; collapsing them hides the difference between no evidence and evidence of absence. Test the dictionary on a case with a missing privilege log and a case with a corrected value. Record the data extraction date and the version of the deadline calendar used for the population count. Use a separate field for reviewer notes so the coded values stay comparable. Link the observation to the exact field in the deadline calendar and to the privilege log that supports it. The client contact decision on matter intake should be dated October 28 and linked to the privilege log. Test the dictionary on five cases before the full sample; ambiguous fields should be fixed before collection, not after. Keep the identity crosswalk in the approved system and restrict it to the review owner. Record the source identifier, the field name, the observation time, and the reviewer for every extracted value. Pilot the dictionary with two reviewers and compare their classifications before the main sample. If the case moved between owners, include both owner periods in the review note and name the handoff time. The October 28 matter intake close should name the destination field, the approver, and the conflict check cycle check. Use a pseudonymous case key and keep the identity crosswalk in an approved system with restricted access. Test the dictionary on a case with a missing outside counsel invoice and a case with a corrected value. Record the data extraction date and the version of the billing portal used for the population count. A case key should remain stable if the case moves between owners or changes status. When a value is missing, record the missing state and the reason instead of leaving an empty field in the extract. The October 28 matter intake exception log should show the reason code, owner, and release decision.

Sampling and collection

Include adverse cases: a missing deadline entry, a conflicting source, an unavailable supervising attorney, and a tight deadline. Record the time of each observation so a later reviewer can distinguish a late entry from a changed decision. Do not expand the sample only because the early result looks weak or strong. Do not let the reviewer choose the sample after seeing the results. If the evidence is sensitive, record the approved reference and access path rather than copying the content. The October 28 matter intake recovery test should record the restore point and the document index completeness result. If the population is small, report every case and the reason the sample is exhaustive rather than presenting a false precision. Keep the collection window and the number of collectors in the report; both affect how the result should be interpreted. If a stratum has fewer cases than planned, report the smaller count instead of replacing it with a convenience case. Include at least one case from each owner in scope when the frame allows it. Record this decision in the study log with the case key, the review date, and the person who approved the classification. The October 28 control note for Legal Services Offshore should name the matter intake source, the owner, and the next review time. Record the eligible count, the sample size, and every exclusion so another reviewer can reproduce the sample. Collect the case from the matter management system, the matter intake, and the approval record, and stop at the verified close. Keep the sample selection reproducible by recording the export date, filter, and random seed or start rule. Do not let the reviewer choose the sample after seeing the results. If the source changes after the observation, preserve the earlier value and add a dated note instead of replacing it. The October 28 evidence trail for matter intake should show the source version and the client contact decision.

Analysis and reporting

Compare invoice review time across owners only after checking the case mix, the channel, and the evidence standard. Compare periods only after checking the case mix, the definitions, and the queue rules. Record the sample date, the denominator, the numerator, and the exclusion count for every reported rate. Report the numerator, denominator, observation window, and exclusion count for each measure. Use the same note in the case file and the study extract; do not create a second version in a personal document. The matter intake review at Legal Services Offshore should state whether the outside counsel invoice was current on October 28. Report the eligible count, the sample, the missing-field rate, the exception rate, and the unresolved count at the close of the window. The analysis should end with the decision the evidence can support and the decision it cannot support. Keep the case-level table available for review and summarize only the measures that answer the question. End with the decision the evidence supports and the decision it does not support. Keep the measurement note short enough to read with the case and specific enough to support the reported matter reopen rate. The October 28 matter intake note should distinguish a missing matter intake from a confirmed negative.

Limitations

Selection bias remains if the team samples only records that are easy to open or cases handled by cooperative owners. Report the unknown population and the evidence that would be needed to describe it. Keep the limitations with the result so a later reader does not turn a local observation into a general claim. If the reviewer performed the work, use a second reviewer for a subsample and report the disagreement. Link the observation to the exact field in the matter management system and to the matter intake that supports it. The supervising attorney decision on matter intake should be dated October 28 and linked to the matter intake. Small samples are sensitive to one case; report the instability instead of presenting a percentage as a stable rate. A clean summary can hide missing evidence, especially when the operator who did the work is also the reviewer. Name the follow-up evidence that would reduce the largest uncertainty. Keep the limitations with the result so a local observation is not turned into a general claim. If the case moved between owners, include both owner periods in the review note and name the handoff time. The October 28 matter intake close should name the destination field, the approver, and the conflict check cycle check.

Review and next action

A quality review should end with an owner, a date, and one testable change, not a list of intentions. Report what moved, what stayed the same, and what the study still cannot explain. Report the action result even if the change did not work; a failed test is still evidence. Schedule the next review before the action begins, not after the result arrives. When a value is missing, record the missing state and the reason instead of leaving an empty field in the extract. The October 28 matter intake exception log should show the reason code, owner, and release decision. A quality review should end with an owner, a date, and one testable change, not a list of intentions. Choose one change and one measure to test it; a long action list is hard to evaluate. Report the action result even if the change did not work; a failed test is still evidence. Use a short action log that names the change, the owner, the due date, and the measure that will show whether it worked. If the evidence is sensitive, record the approved reference and access path rather than copying the content. The October 28 matter intake recovery test should record the restore point and the privilege exceptions result.

Related research

• Auditing backup-owner coverage for privilege log
• Estimating exception spillover in document index
• Testing evidence retention across conflict packet corrections