Most legal ops teams don’t run a true annual rate process.

Instead, rate increase requests come in throughout the year, often ad hoc, with little consistency across firms. There’s no clear baseline, limited benchmarking, and decisions are made in isolation. Over time, this creates cost creep, makes increases harder to push back on, and makes decisions difficult to justify internally.

As a Legal Ops leader who has worked with several Fortune 500, and nearly half of the Fortune 10, we’ve tried nearly every technique to rein in this process. Over the years, we’ve seen what works, what doesn’t, and what actually drives participation and savings.

At its best, the annual rate process turns what most legal ops leaders would describe as a nightmare into a repeatable, step-by-step approach. It brings predictability instead of constant negotiation and shifts teams from reacting to requests to managing outcomes.

Here’s what we’ve found can move your next annual rate process (if you even have one!) from Freddy Krueger to Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way.

Bringing Structure to the Annual Rate Process

The annual rate process is fundamentally about control – defining the who, what, when, where, and why. While some worry that asking firms to submit rate increases will overwhelm them, the lack of a defined process results in year-round requests with no benchmarks, comparisons, or cost control. Even when a process is communicated, many firms opt not to participate or agree to hold rates for one or two years.

But when run consistently, the shift is tangible. Instead of reviewing scattered requests throughout the year, teams evaluate firms together, with clear benchmarks and trade-offs. In one case, participation increased from 50% to 68%, creating cost certainty across most firms over a two-year cycle.

Who should participate depends on your firm roster. Most organisations limit invitations to firms above a defined spend threshold and exclude those handling only specialised work. But this is a balancing act. Set the threshold too low, and you create noise; too high, and you reduce leverage. Clear guidance on which timekeepers can be submitted is equally important to avoid unfocused requests.

What data to collect should be limited and purposeful. Focus on what actually supports analysis:

• Spend by timekeeper role
• Rate history
• Years of experience
• Practice group
• Office location

Expanding the dataset too far often reduces usability rather than improving insight. A focused dataset makes benchmarking easier and enables more effective use of technology.

When to run the process: Should align with either the fiscal or calendar year, based on finance preferences. Deadlines need to be clearly communicated and consistently enforced.

Where data should be submitted: Either through the e-billing system or via a standardised template submitted to a designated inbox. Standardisation is critical. It enables cleaner analysis, stronger benchmarking, and more reliable decision-making across firms.

Why this matters: Without structure, firms submit increases throughout the year, with no limits on timing or amount. A defined process, supported by data and technology, provides control, limits financial impact, and improves negotiating leverage. It can mean turning a 15% increase into a 10% increase, with meaningful cost savings at scale.

But more importantly, it changes how the function operates. Instead of reacting to incoming requests, legal ops teams set the cadence, define expectations, and create consistency across firms. Over time, participation improves, decisions become easier to benchmark, and outcomes become more predictable.

This is less about managing rates and more about operating discipline.

The annual rate process doesn’t eliminate complexity, but it replaces chaos with a system that holds up year after year, one that feels a lot closer to Mary Poppins than Freddy Krueger.