Start with your own record, prove that intelligence changes an actual decision, then expand on measured value.
A corporate legal department may defend thousands of matters through dozens of firms. A carrier may see the same injury patterns, plaintiff attorneys and contested issues across years of claims. Each resolution teaches something. Too often, that lesson stays with a person or disappears into a closed file.
My standard for the next decade is specific. Every open matter should have a current assessment tied to evidence, an accountable decision-maker and an explicit next action. Every closed matter should make the organization better at deciding what to do with a comparable case.
We have already paid to develop that body of knowledge. We should be able to use it while the next decision is still open.
Morgan & Morgan's technology commitment gives this work new urgency. Our answer should be a defense organization that learns continuously from its own record: which facts changed the evaluation, which actions justified their cost, which counsel performed well on comparable work, and when resolution was the better decision.
That is the ambition behind Litigation Intelligence.
The operating foundation predates today's generative AI. In a published insurer case study, CaseGlide reported a 30% reduction in defense spend over two years and an increase in caseload capacity from 40 to 120 cases per adjuster. The insurer used shared case ratings, identified settlement candidates and made counsel selection more informed by the record. Source 6
Those raw capacity figures represent three times the cases per adjuster. They come from an anonymous, company-published historical example; they are not a promise of what another organization will achieve, or evidence that current AI features caused the improvement.
Another published example describes Velocity Risk Underwriters using structured settlement estimates and probabilities to support exposure evaluation, then examining counsel's estimating accuracy. The lesson is specific: an assessment becomes more valuable when the eventual result can teach the organization how well it assessed the case. Source 7
These examples establish a practical foundation. They do not establish that every client has cut settlements by a fixed percentage. Our next investment decisions should demand that level of measurement rather than assume it.
A GC should be able to explain which matters changed the portfolio's exposure and why. A claims executive should be able to identify the files where the current strategy no longer fits the evidence. Both should know whether another month of defense activity is expected to improve the outcome enough to justify its cost.
Begin with one of those decisions. Identify the records required, the person accountable and the consequence of acting late. An initial evaluation should establish the quality of those inputs before anyone treats a dashboard as the truth.
CaseGlide's Council engagement offers one starting point. Its current scope is a ten-week analytics engagement using data extracts, with roughly four to five hours of client participation. Discovery, preparation, dashboard population and analysis lead to a findings discussion and three to five immediate actions. It does not require system credentials or API connections. Source 8
That matters for a leadership team with a pressing operating question and limited implementation capacity. The first investment can produce a better understanding of its portfolio. A full platform rollout can be scoped separately on the strength of what the organization learns.
The next step is operational. Counsel's work must reach the people making decisions in a form they can use. CaseGlide's platform organizes that work around Assess, Resolve and Manage Counsel. Source 9
Case Clerk AI is positioned to capture facts and updates from counsel's reporting and keep the case record current. Chronicle AI assembles a chronology from the underlying materials. Chambers AI helps users ask questions of their own case history. The point of combining them is to make the next decision better informed without asking an executive to reconstruct the file personally. Source 9
The evaluation should test this on real, appropriately scoped matters. Select cases with different injuries, venues and stages; include difficult files, not just clean demonstrations. Have responsible reviewers compare extracted facts with the sources. Measure how long a material change takes to reach the right person and how much correction is required.
Then test the consequential part. Did the new information change a settlement instruction, a discovery decision, a budget or a counsel assignment? Was the change carried out? A summary becomes valuable when it improves work somebody is accountable for doing.
The objective is lower total avoidable litigation cost with sound outcomes. In a weak defense case, better intelligence may support earlier fair payment. In a defensible case, it may support a stronger challenge and a deliberate investment in the evidence needed to win. An indiscriminate instruction to settle less or spend less would defeat the purpose.
Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.
CaseGlide's current website sets targets of 10% lower defense spend, 5% lower settlements and 15% lower litigation volume. Each requires its own baseline and measurement. They are program objectives, not guaranteed results or percentages to add together. Source 10
For illustration, a portfolio with $20 million in annual defense expense and $80 million in indemnity would have $1.8 million of gross improvement from a 5% reduction in the first and 1% in the second. Program costs come out of that number. These are hypothetical assumptions, not a forecast. Even the expense-only case deserves a separate evaluation.
Finance should be able to reproduce the calculation. Compare similar cases, account for mix and maturity, and distinguish a lower payment from a better outcome. A reduction measured against an opening demand is not automatically a reduction against what a comparable case would otherwise have cost.
Expansion should follow demonstrated usefulness. Connect the relevant systems within an agreed scope. Define who reviews an exposure change, who authorizes the next action and how the organization records its reasoning. Preserve the connection between a recommendation, the evidence available at the time and the eventual result.
A law firm that handles harder cases should not look worse merely because its cases cost more. A firm that closes easy files quickly should not automatically win the difficult assignments. Over time, comparable outcomes should inform panel decisions, staffing and strategy. CaseGlide's counsel-performance approach places those results alongside the difficulty of the work. Source 11
The same discipline protects institutional memory. When an adjuster moves, a lawyer retires or the panel changes, the organization's experience should remain available. It should not have to buy the same lesson twice because the people who learned it have changed.
Existing claims systems, billing controls and counsel's own AI investments can all contribute. The investment test is whether they produce a shared record across firms and a completed decision for the client. If that capability already exists, use it. Where it does not, CaseGlide's role is to join the work product, portfolio context and accountable workflow in one operating discipline.
Imagine the next important deposition. Its material facts enter the shared record with their sources. A conflict with the prior assessment becomes visible. The responsible executive and lawyer see which decision needs attention, record the action they authorize and later compare its result with what they expected.
Now apply that discipline across the portfolio. Leadership can see which decisions are waiting, which require more evidence, and which counsel strategies justify continued investment. When a matter closes, the organization updates its understanding of comparable work. This is the operating vision for continued development and validation, not a claim that every step is already automated.
Judgment and authority stay with the people responsible for the matter. The system should show its sources, expose uncertainty and help them act while action still matters. Better measurement can then tell us which improvements deserve to expand.
That is how I believe the defense can keep the scales balanced: facts available to the people who need them, justified claims resolved fairly, defensible cases defended well, and avoidable expense removed from both paths. Existing client examples show that meaningful operating improvement is possible. The next task is to make it repeatable and prove its value in each portfolio.
The organizations that build this capability will carry more of what they have learned into every new matter. That is an advantage worth investing in for the next decade.
Start with your own litigation record. Bring one question your leadership needs answered. Explore Council or start a conversation about your docket.
Read the companion analysis: Morgan & Morgan's $1 Billion Bet on the Economics of a Case.
6. CaseGlide. Claims Litigation Management Case Study. April 2022 publication path. Anonymous residential property insurer; company-reported results over two years. Capacity arithmetic uses the published 40 and 120 figures rather than the inconsistent percentage headline.
7. CaseGlide. Velocity Improves Claims Reserve Management. March 3, 2022. Named historical operating example; no quantified savings claim used.
8. CaseGlide. Council Litigation Analytics Without the IT Integration Project. Retrieved September 14, 2026. Current marketed engagement scope; sample dashboard is illustrative.
9. CaseGlide. Platform. Retrieved September 14, 2026. Marketed capabilities; this source is not a deployment acceptance test.
10. CaseGlide. Litigation Intelligence Platform. Retrieved September 14, 2026. Website labels reductions as targets; fictional matter shown in the demonstration.
11. CaseGlide. How Do We Measure Which Defense Attorneys Actually Win Hard Cases. Updated July 2026. Method for assessing counsel performance; no universal customer outcome inferred.
The Executive Briefing has five questions about your reported litigation practices. Use the summary to choose an operating question to explore.
Take the Executive Briefing →Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.