The importance of better matter data
Most firms still record matters in a way that is frustratingly shallow. A new client instruction gets opened, a broad matter type is tagged – M&A, litigation, real estate – and that’s it. Even then, the labelling can be wrong. A strategic acquisition might be logged the same way as a private equity roll-up, or a straightforward lease renewal might be tagged as a full-scale development project.
What’s missing is context. Very few firms capture data on which side they were representing, what the deal structure looked like, or the key complexities of the engagement. Without that, firms cannot easily answer the most basic strategic question: what exactly have we done, and for whom?
The cost of shallow data
The absence of structured matter data is not just an internal inconvenience. It has real commercial impact:
- Pricing and budgeting: without comparable precedents, firms struggle to scope work accurately, which either eats into margin or leaves clients frustrated by overruns.
- Pitching and submissions: finding examples that truly match a potential client’s situation takes time – often hours of trawling – and risks missing the strongest illustrations of capability.
- Measuring GenAI impact: as firms introduce new tools, the only way to test efficiency gains is to compare like-for-like matters. If the baseline data isn’t there, meaningful analysis is impossible.
What better data could unlock
By capturing richer, structured data at the outset of every matter, firms put themselves in a position to:
- deliver tighter, evidence-based pricing
- accelerate pitches and directory submissions, with precise examples ready to pull
- run performance analytics across similar matters, from cycle times to outcomes
- build a more credible story of experience and expertise for clients and talent alike
A case study: M&A matters
Consider the difference between a “typical” M&A matter record and a best-in-class one. In the typical version, you might see nothing more than “Matter type: M&A.” By contrast, a richer, structured record would capture whether the firm represented the acquirer or vendor; the deal type (private equity buyout, strategic acquisition, minority stake, divestment, or MBO); the structure (simultaneous or conditional); whether shares or assets were being purchased; the form of consideration (shares, cash, a mix, or vendor loan); the jurisdictions involved; whether there was an earn-out or auction process; the level of diligence effort (high, medium or low); whether a shareholders’ agreement was negotiated; how the acquisition was financed (debt, equity or not applicable); and what antitrust or regulatory bodies were engaged.
The difference is stark. In the first, you know nothing beyond “we did an M&A deal.” In the second, you have a detailed profile of the matter – exactly the kind of data that enables proper analysis, accurate resourcing, and persuasive pitching.
Closing thought
Better matter data is not an administrative burden; it is an investment in the firm’s ability to compete. Firms that treat it as such will find themselves better placed to win work, price it correctly, and demonstrate value to clients in an increasingly data-driven market.
