Back
Effective Feb 2026
Legal & BA Team
Internal policy guide

Legal Spend Governance

Legal & BA Spend Policy

This page turns the current Legal & BA spend process into a practical operating guide. It aligns sourcing, approval, matter and PO creation, Brightflag invoice handling, and final payment review in one public reference page.

What changes under this policy

External legal spend should be planned before the vendor starts, not justified after the invoice arrives.

Default expectation

Almost all work should be quoted on a fixed or capped basis with clear assumptions and scope boundaries.

Before approval

Benchmark the work, decide whether an exception applies, and submit the request before cost is agreed.

After approval

Where entity policy requires it, the approved request creates the matter and PO used to route Brightflag invoices.

What “spending smart” means in practice

The old pattern was fragmented: limited global visibility, inconsistent scope definition, and too much ad hoc vendor engagement. The current policy reframes each spend decision around governance, budget visibility, and invoice discipline.

Necessary

Spend should be anticipated, scoped early, and tied to a clear business need before vendor work starts.

Measurable

Requests, approvals, matters, and invoice checks should be visible in one process so legal spend can be budgeted accurately.

Efficient

Competitive sourcing, capped fees, and structured invoice review reduce surprises and improve value for money.

Target Fee Structure

Move spend away from open-ended hourly uncertainty

The approval flow works best when legal costs are defined upfront. Fixed or capped fees should be the default. Tight ranges are acceptable only where the work is genuinely unpredictable and the assumptions are documented clearly.

90% fixed or capped

This is the expected standard for routine and project-based legal work because it supports budget accuracy and better vendor comparisons.

10% tightly defined range exceptions

Use only when duration or external events cannot be forecast reliably, and capture the assumptions in the approval request.

Illustrative target distribution

Native CSS visual aligned to the app theme, replacing the static chart embed.

90/10Target mix

Fixed or capped fees

Preferred for almost all engagements.

Tight range exceptions

Only with a clear reason and stated assumptions.

Three-phase workflow

Follow the process from vendor sourcing to final invoice review

The workflow below mirrors the current approval process used by the system. It keeps sourcing, approval, and invoice handling in the right order so that Finance only sees compliant invoices tied to the correct matter and PO.

Phase 1

Source competitively and scope tightly

As a default, benchmark the work with 2 to 3 providers. The point is not only price. It is also to compare approach, turnaround, and whether the vendor understands the underlying business problem.

Urgent or highly specialized matters can justify a single-source exception, but the reason should be documented explicitly in the approval request.

Every quote should show

  • A tightly drafted scope stating what will and will not be covered.
  • Assumptions that affect volume, timing, or complexity.
  • A clear fee structure, with fixed or capped fees as the default.
  • Stage-by-stage breakdowns for larger projects, plus the overall total.
  • Enough detail to compare the work fairly against other providers.

Compliance and quick links

Process discipline is part of how the team manages spend quality. The links below reflect the current public materials available in the product experience.

Performance expectation

Cost discipline is a team responsibility. Following the sourcing, approval, and invoice review steps is part of the operating standard for Legal & BA work with external vendors.

Engagement checklist

Use this local checklist as a quick pre-flight before a vendor starts work or uploads the first invoice.

Progress

0/6 completed