| name | panel-review-rationalisation |
| description | Panel health assessment, firm exit management, coverage gap analysis, and panel refresh brief for in-house legal ops teams. Produce an annual Panel Health Report synthesising scorecard data, billing compliance, and step-out patterns into per-firm recommendations — Retain, Watch, Improvement Plan, or Exit Review. Produce a firm exit pack: formal exit notice with active matter transition plan, plus an internal exit record. Identify practice area, geographic, or tier gaps and produce a structured Coverage Gap Report with remediation options. Produce a Panel Refresh Brief as a scoped input to the RFP process. Trigger on: 'review our panel', 'annual panel review', 'is our panel working', 'which firms should we exit', 'write the exit notice', 'coverage gap', 'we don't have anyone for restructuring', 'refresh the panel', 'panel rationalisation', 'too many firms', 'step-out problem', 'do we have the right firms'. |
panel-review-rationalisation
Description
Panel health assessment, firm exit management, coverage gap analysis, and panel refresh brief for in-house legal ops teams. Produce an annual Panel Health Report synthesising scorecard data, billing compliance, and step-out patterns into per-firm recommendations — Retain, Watch, Improvement Plan, or Exit Review. Produce a firm exit pack: formal exit notice with active matter transition plan, plus an internal exit record. Identify practice area, geographic, or tier gaps and produce a structured Coverage Gap Report with remediation options. Produce a Panel Refresh Brief as a scoped input to the RFP process. Trigger on: 'review our panel', 'annual panel review', 'is our panel working', 'which firms should we exit', 'write the exit notice', 'coverage gap', 'we don't have anyone for restructuring', 'refresh the panel', 'panel rationalisation', 'too many firms', 'step-out problem', 'do we have the right firms'.
What This Skill Does
Executes the annual panel review cycle and ongoing panel governance decisions. Encodes the methodology for assessing panel health against original selection criteria, managing firm exits with defensible documentation, identifying and classifying coverage gaps, and scoping competitive processes to fill open slots.
This skill does NOT:
- Design the original panel structure or define firm tiers — use panel-design-selection (OCM Skill 2)
- Run the RFP or competitive process to fill an open slot — use rfp-pitch-management (OCM Skill 3)
- Collect post-matter feedback or run QBRs — use performance-scorecard (OCM Skill 7)
- Review invoices or flag billing non-compliance — use invoice-review-compliance (OCM Skill 6)
- Draft or update the outside counsel guidelines — use engagement-terms-billing-guidelines (OCM Skill 1)
Cross-skill connections:
- performance-scorecard (Skill 7) is the ongoing data collection mechanism. This skill is the periodic formal assessment that acts on accumulated scorecard data. Skill 7 produces the data; this skill synthesises it into panel decisions.
- panel-design-selection (Skill 2) defines the original panel structure and selection criteria. This skill assesses the panel against those criteria over time.
- rfp-pitch-management (Skill 3) executes the competitive process that Mode 4 (Panel Refresh Brief) scopes. This skill identifies the gap and brief; Skill 3 runs the process.
- invoice-review-compliance (Skill 6) produces the billing compliance records that feed the Panel Health Assessment. Persistent billing non-compliance is a panel health signal.
- engagement-terms-billing-guidelines (Skill 1) sets the OCG compliance standards that billing compliance records are measured against.
Pre-flight — Confirm and Fill
Gather what you have. Fill in what is known. Use placeholders for the rest. Proceed immediately.
| Field | Value |
|---|
| Company / Legal department | [Company] |
| Review period | [Year / Quarter] |
| Number of panel firms | [N] / Unknown |
| Available data | Scorecard results (Skill 7) / Billing compliance (Skill 6) / Step-out log / Matter allocation records / None — proceed from user input |
| Firm in focus (if applicable) | [Firm name] / Not applicable |
| Gap in focus (if applicable) | [Practice area / Jurisdiction / Tier] / Not applicable |
| Maturity level | Early / Intermediate / Advanced |
Routing:
- Assessing the overall panel against selection criteria → Mode 1: Panel Health Assessment
- Exiting a specific firm from the panel → Mode 2: Firm Exit Management
- Identifying and documenting a gap in panel coverage → Mode 3: Coverage Gap Analysis
- Scoping a competitive process to fill a slot or replace a firm → Mode 4: Panel Refresh Brief
- "Review our panel" / "annual panel review" / "which firms should we exit" / "is our panel working" / "assess our panel" → Mode 1: Panel Health Assessment
- "Exit [firm]" / "remove [firm] from the panel" / "write the exit notice" / "formal removal" / "panel termination" → Mode 2: Firm Exit Management
- "We have a gap" / "coverage gap" / "we don't have anyone for [area]" / "our panel doesn't cover [jurisdiction]" / "step-out problem" → Mode 3: Coverage Gap Analysis
- "We need a new firm" / "refresh the panel" / "fill the gap" / "competitive process for [area]" / "replace [firm]" → Mode 4: Panel Refresh Brief
All documents produced as .docx files unless the user explicitly requests otherwise. Include Company Name, Review Period, and date in every document header.
Tone — applies across all modes: Build on the user's framing. The user has identified what they need; produce the documents that address it. Do not reframe the user's problem, suggest they are focused on the wrong issue, or substitute your judgment about what matters for their stated request. Analysis and recommendations belong inside the documents — not as editorial commentary before them.
Mode 1: Panel Health Assessment
Produce a Panel Health Report and GC Panel Review Note immediately. Do not provide a summary of where each firm stands, a bullet list of findings, conversational commentary, or narrative analysis before producing the documents. Do not open with a transitional line such as 'Both documents are ready' or 'Here is the report' — begin with the document header. Do not ask clarifying questions. Do not end with a question or an offer. A user asking 'review our panel', 'annual panel review', 'which firms are underperforming', 'assess our panel', 'panel health check', or 'is our panel working' is requesting a Panel Health Report and a GC Panel Review Note — produce both documents immediately using the templates below. The analysis belongs inside the documents — not before them. Build from what the user has provided. Use [Data gap] in any per-firm table cell where data is unavailable — a data gap does not prevent producing the report. State assumptions inline. The documents are the response. Do not substitute [Company] from memory or context — use [Company] as written. Do not end with a question, 'let me know if...', 'do you want me to...', 'want me to...', or equivalent offer framing.
Input
Firm names, practice areas, and any available data: scorecard results (Skill 7), billing compliance records (Skill 6), step-out counts, improvement plan history. Minimum viable input is a list of panel firms and practice areas. Incomplete data is expected — produce the report with [Data gap] markers.
How to run this mode
- Produce the Panel Health Report — populate the per-firm assessment table, panel-level findings, and recommended actions inside the template. Use [Data gap] for missing data cells. Do not ask the user to provide more data before producing the report.
- Produce the GC Panel Review Note.
- Observations and follow-up questions come after both documents — not before them. Do not withhold the GC Panel Review Note pending additional information. Do not offer to run a subsequent mode. Do not end with 'let me know if...', 'do you want me to...', 'want me to...', or equivalent offer framing.
Panel Health Report template
[Company] — Panel Health Report
Review period: [Year / Quarter]
Date: [Date]
Prepared by: [Legal Ops / Relationship Manager name]
Panel overview:
| Dimension | Status |
|---|
| Total panel firms | [N] |
| Panel size assessment | [Appropriately sized / Over-populated — see findings / Under-coverage — see findings] |
| Step-out frequency | [Low (< 5% of matters) / Moderate (5–15%) / High (> 15%)] — [N] step-outs in review period |
| D&I standing | [On track / Below target / Not yet tracked] |
| Data completeness | [Full data available / Partial — [N] firms with [Data gap] entries — see per-firm table] |
Per-firm assessment:
| Firm | Practice area(s) | Tier | Scorecard result | Billing compliance | Step-out matters | Prior improvement plan | Recommended action |
|---|
| [Firm A] | [Practice area] | [A/B/C] | [Tier 1–4 / [Data gap]] | [Compliant / [N] violations / [Data gap]] | [N / [Data gap]] | [None / Active: [status] / Completed: [outcome]] | [Retain / Watch / Improvement Plan / Exit Review] |
| [Firm B] | [Practice area] | [A/B/C] | [Tier 1–4 / [Data gap]] | [Compliant / [N] violations / [Data gap]] | [N / [Data gap]] | [None / Active: [status] / Completed: [outcome]] | [Retain / Watch / Improvement Plan / Exit Review] |
| [Add rows for each panel firm] | | | | | | | |
Panel-level findings:
Coverage:
[Coverage gaps identified — practice area / geography / tier: [describe] / No material gaps identified]
Panel size:
[In range / Over-populated — [N] firms in [practice area] where [N] would be sufficient / Under-coverage in [area] — step-outs attributable to gap]
Step-out pattern:
[Step-out frequency within acceptable range / High step-out rate in [practice area] — leading indicator of [coverage gap / underperforming panelled firm] / Step-outs concentrated with [firm type / area] — investigate]
D&I:
[Diverse suppliers in panel: [N] of [total] / On track against [target] / Below target — [N] diverse firms where target is [N] / Not yet tracked — recommend implementing at next scorecard cycle]
Recommended actions summary:
| Recommended action | Firms | Rationale |
|---|
| Retain | [Firm names / None] | [1 sentence] |
| Watch | [Firm names / None] | [1 sentence — flag the specific dimension to monitor] |
| Improvement Plan | [Firm names / None] | [1 sentence per firm — state the trigger: Tier 3 scorecard result / billing violations / step-out pattern] |
| Exit Review | [Firm names / None] | [1 sentence per firm — state the basis: sustained Tier 4 / completed improvement plan — targets not met / coverage rationalisation] |
Data sources used: [Performance scorecard (Skill 7) / Invoice compliance records (Skill 6) / Matter allocation records (Skill 5) / Step-out log / User-provided / Other: [describe]]
Data gaps: [List firms and dimensions where data is unavailable. These entries are marked [Data gap] in the per-firm table above. Recommend data collection priorities for the next cycle.]
GC Panel Review Note template
[Company] — Panel Review Note
To: [GC / CLO / Legal Ops Director]
Review period: [Year / Quarter] | Date: [Date]
[2 sentences: panel composition and review purpose.] [1 sentence: headline finding on panel health.]
Key recommendations:
- Retain ([N] firms): [brief characterisation]
- Watch ([N] firms): [brief characterisation — the dimension being monitored]
- Improvement Plans ([N] firms): [brief characterisation — attach Panel Health Report for detail]
- Exit Review ([N] firms): [brief characterisation — or 'None']
[1 sentence: step-out finding if frequency is Moderate or High. Omit if Low.]
[1 sentence: D&I standing if tracked. Omit if not yet tracked.]
Approval requested: Panel Health Report recommendations. Improvement plans and exit reviews will proceed on receipt of approval. Firms recommended for exit review: proceed to Mode 2 (Firm Exit Management).
Recommended action framework — apply inside templates above
| Action | Trigger | Next step |
|---|
| Retain | Scorecard Tier 1–2; billing compliance clean; step-outs attributable to gap not firm failure | No action required. Review at next cycle. |
| Watch | Scorecard Tier 2–3 borderline; single billing compliance failure; step-out spike in one period; first-cycle data only | Flag the specific dimension. Set a 6-month interim check. Do not issue an improvement plan at this stage. |
| Watch — improvement plan active | Firm already has an active improvement plan; mid-point check not yet completed or outcome not yet known | Do not re-label as Improvement Plan. The plan is in progress. Note mid-point check status and deadline. Escalate to Exit Review only if mid-point check confirms targets are not being met. |
| Improvement Plan | Scorecard Tier 3 in current cycle; second or subsequent billing compliance violations; improvement plan not yet issued | Proceed to improvement plan before exit. 6-month window with measurable targets. Communicate via Mode 3 QBR (Skill 7). |
| Exit Review | Sustained Tier 4 (two or more consecutive cycles); completed improvement plan — targets not met; coverage rationalisation decision | Proceed to Mode 2 (Firm Exit Management). GC approval required before exit notice is issued. |
Mode 2: Firm Exit Management
Produce a Firm Exit Notice and Transition Plan and an Internal Exit Record immediately. Do not provide commentary, analysis, or narrative before producing the documents. Do not open with a transitional line such as 'Both documents are being generated' or 'Here is the exit pack' — begin with the document header. Do not ask clarifying questions. Do not end with a question or an offer. A user asking to exit a firm, remove a firm from the panel, write an exit notice, or manage a panel termination is requesting a Firm Exit Notice and Transition Plan and an Internal Exit Record — produce both documents immediately using the templates below. Do not substitute [Company] from memory or context — use [Company] as written. The Firm Exit Notice uses [Firm] as a deliberate review gate — do not substitute the firm's actual name in the exit notice even if the firm name is provided in session. The Internal Exit Record uses the firm's actual name. Do not end with a question, 'let me know if...', 'do you want me to...', 'want me to...', or equivalent offer framing.
Input
Firm name, basis for exit (performance grounds, coverage rationalisation, or strategic panel refresh), active matters in transition, improvement plan history if applicable. Minimum viable input is firm name and exit basis.
How to run this mode
- Produce the Firm Exit Notice and Transition Plan — use [Firm] as a deliberate review gate throughout the external document. Do not substitute the firm's name even if provided in the session. This document requires user review before dispatch.
- Produce the Internal Exit Record — use the firm's actual name in this internal document.
- Observations and follow-up questions come after both documents — not before them. Do not withhold the Internal Exit Record pending additional information. Do not offer to run a subsequent mode. Do not end with 'let me know if...', 'do you want me to...', 'want me to...', or equivalent offer framing.
Firm Exit Notice and Transition Plan template
[Company] — Legal Department
[Address]
[Date]
[Firm]
[Contact name — Managing Partner / Relationship Partner]
[Firm address]
Re: Panel standing — formal notification
Dear [Contact name],
I am writing to formally notify you that [Firm] will be removed from [Company]'s preferred panel of outside counsel, effective [date — typically 30–60 days from notice].
[1 paragraph: the basis for removal. Use one of the following framings based on exit basis provided:
- Performance grounds: "Following [Company]'s annual panel review for the [period] cycle, [Firm]'s performance against our selection criteria has not met the standards required for continued panel standing. [Where an improvement plan was issued: this follows a formal improvement plan issued in [month/year], the targets of which were not achieved within the agreed timeframe.]"
- Coverage rationalisation: "Following a review of [Company]'s panel composition, we have determined that our requirements in [practice area / jurisdiction] are best served by consolidating to [N] panel providers. This decision reflects a change in our panel structure and is not a reflection of [Firm]'s service quality."
- Strategic panel refresh: "Following [Company]'s periodic panel review, we are refreshing our panel through a competitive process. [Firm]'s current engagement will conclude on the date set out below."]
Active matter transition:
| Matter | Current lead partner | Transition deadline | Successor arrangements | Handover required |
|---|
| [Matter A] | [Partner name] | [Date] | [To be confirmed / Successor firm: [Firm]] | [Yes — full handover pack / No — wind down only] |
| [Add rows for each active matter] | | | | |
[1 paragraph: process for wind-down of ongoing work. Include: deadline for final fee submissions ([30/60] days from effective exit date); contact for transition queries; expectation that all confidential materials are returned or securely destroyed; and confirmation that outstanding approved fees will be settled in accordance with the existing engagement terms.]
We thank [Firm] for the work undertaken during the panel engagement and wish you well.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Title — Legal Operations Director / General Counsel]
[Company]
Review before sending. Replace [Firm] with the firm's full legal name. Confirm [Contact name], [date], and active matter details before dispatch. GC sign-off required.
Internal Exit Record template
[Company] — Internal Panel Exit Record
Firm: [Firm name — full legal name]
Exit effective date: [Date]
Date prepared: [Date]
Prepared by: [Legal Ops manager name]
Exit basis: [Performance — Scorecard Tier [N], [N] consecutive review cycles / Coverage rationalisation — panel consolidated from [N] to [N] firms in [practice area] / Strategic panel refresh — competitive process initiated]
Prior improvement plan: [Yes — issued [month/year]; targets: [describe]; outcome: [targets met / targets partially met / targets not met — exit triggered]] / [Not issued — firm in sustained Tier 4 across [N] cycles; direct exit applied per consequence framework] / [Not applicable — exit basis is coverage rationalisation or panel refresh, not performance]
Active matters at exit: [N matters in transition — see exit notice for detail] / [None — no active matters at time of exit]
GC approval: [Approved by [name] on [date]] / [Pending — obtain before issuing exit notice]
Relationship notes: [Any sensitivities relevant to managing the exit — personal relationships with firm partners, reciprocal business, referral arrangements, ongoing negotiation. Internal use only. If none, state 'None identified'.]
Successor arrangements: [Successor firm identified: [Firm name] — to be instructed via matter-allocation-instruction (Skill 5)] / [Successor to be confirmed via panel refresh process — see Mode 4 / rfp-pitch-management (Skill 3)]
Improvement plan reference — apply before triggering exit
Exit on performance grounds without a prior improvement plan is harder to defend if the firm challenges the removal. Best practice:
| Scenario | Recommended approach |
|---|
| Scorecard Tier 3 — first occurrence | Issue improvement plan. 6-month window. Measurable targets against the criteria that triggered Tier 3. Communicate through QBR process (performance-scorecard Skill 7 Mode 3). |
| Scorecard Tier 3 — second consecutive cycle | Issue improvement plan if first was not issued. Exit review if targets from first improvement plan were not met. |
| Scorecard Tier 4 — any cycle | Improvement plan is discretionary. Sustained Tier 4 (two or more cycles) supports direct exit without improvement plan — document basis in Internal Exit Record. |
| Coverage rationalisation / panel refresh | No improvement plan required. The basis for exit is structural, not performance. Document clearly in exit notice and internal record to manage firm expectations. |
| Improvement plan completed — targets met | Return to Retain or Watch. Do not proceed to exit. Document outcome in Internal Exit Record for future reference. |
Mode 3: Coverage Gap Analysis
Produce a Coverage Gap Report and Remediation Options Note immediately. Do not provide analysis of the gap, recommendations in prose, or advisory commentary before producing the documents. Do not produce bullet-pointed analysis, numbered strategic options, or commercial recommendations as a response to a gap description — these belong inside the Remediation Options Note, not before it. Do not reframe the user's problem or suggest they are focused on the wrong issue — the user has identified the gap; produce the documents that address it. Do not diagnose the problem in conversational form. Do not suggest what you would do. Do not open with a transitional line — begin with the document header. Do not ask the user to formalise or structure their description of the gap before producing the documents. Do not ask clarifying questions. Do not end with a question or an offer. A user describing a gap informally — 'we don't have anyone good for restructuring work', 'we keep going outside the panel for [area]', 'our panel doesn't cover [jurisdiction]' — is requesting a Coverage Gap Report and a Remediation Options Note. If you find yourself writing prose observations about the gap, stop and produce the Coverage Gap Report instead. Convert the informal description into the structured gap classification in the template. Build from what the user has provided. If coverage information is sparse, use [Data gap] markers. Do not substitute [Company] from memory or context — use [Company] as written. The documents are the response. Do not end with a question, 'let me know if...', 'do you want me to...', 'want me to...', or equivalent offer framing.
Input
Description of the gap — however informal. May include: practice area, sub-practice, jurisdiction, step-out data, frequency of gap impact. Minimum viable input is a description of what the panel is failing to cover.
How to run this mode
Your first output must be the Coverage Gap Report header: **[Company] — Coverage Gap Report**. Begin there. Do not write anything before this line.
The Coverage Gap Report is a structured classification document. It classifies the gap by type (practice area / geographic / tier / capacity), severity, current workaround, step-out data, and root cause using the template below. It is not a consulting assessment, advisory note, strategic analysis, or numbered options list. The Remediation Options Note is where options and recommendations appear — not in prose before the Coverage Gap Report.
- Write
**[Company] — Coverage Gap Report** as your first line. Populate all template fields from the user's input. Convert informal descriptions into the structured classification. Use [Data gap] where data is unavailable. Do not ask the user to formalise the description before producing the report.
- Produce the Remediation Options Note.
- Brief observations may follow both documents. Do not withhold the Remediation Options Note pending additional information. Do not offer to run a subsequent mode. Do not end with 'let me know if...', 'do you want me to...', 'want me to...', or equivalent offer framing.
Coverage Gap Report template
[Company] — Coverage Gap Report
Date: [Date]
Prepared by: [Legal Ops / Relationship Manager name]
Gap identified: [Practice area / Geography / Tier / Capacity — as classified from user input]
Gap description:
[1–2 sentences. Restate the gap in structured terms from the user's input, however informally described. Convert informal descriptions ('we don't have anyone good for restructuring work') into the relevant dimension: practice area, sub-practice, jurisdiction, tier, or volume capacity. Example: 'The panel does not include a firm with dedicated restructuring and insolvency capability. Work of this type is currently being allocated outside the panel on a matter-by-matter basis.']
Current panel coverage:
| Practice area | Sub-practice | Jurisdiction | Tier | Firm(s) currently covering | Adequacy |
|---|
| [Practice area] | [Sub-practice / N/A] | [Jurisdiction] | [A/B/C] | [Firm name(s) / None / [Data gap]] | [Adequate / Partial — [describe limitation] / Gap — no panel coverage] |
| [Add rows for each relevant practice area] | | | | | |
Gap classification:
- Gap type: [Practice area gap / Sub-practice gap / Geographic gap / Tier gap / Capacity gap — volume exceeds panel firm's allocation]
- Severity: [Critical — no panel coverage / Significant — partial only, does not meet demand / Emerging — covered but inadequate quality or capacity]
- Current workaround: [Step-outs to [firm type] at above-panel cost / Instructing an over-tiered panel firm for this work type / Declining or deferring the work / Other: [describe]]
- Step-out data: [[N] step-outs attributable to this gap in the past [period] / [Estimated cost premium: [£/$/€] above panel rates] / [Data gap — step-out log not available]]
- Root cause: [Coverage was not built into original panel design / Firm exited without replacement / Work type has grown beyond original panel scope / Original panel criteria did not anticipate this work type / Geographic expansion has created new demand]
Recommended action: [Add to panel — proceed to Mode 4 (Panel Refresh Brief), then rfp-pitch-management (Skill 3) / Assign to existing panel firm with explicit scope expansion — document in matter instruction (Skill 5) / Retain specialist on matter-by-matter basis — temporary only, step-out discipline impact / Defer — volume insufficient to justify a dedicated panel slot at this time]
Remediation Options Note template
[Company] — Gap Remediation Note
To: [GC / Legal Ops Director]
Gap: [Practice area / Geography / Tier] | Date: [Date]
[1 sentence: gap description and current impact on panel discipline or cost.] [1 sentence: recommended remediation route and rationale.]
Options:
| Option | Approach | Est. timeline | Cost / effort | Step-out discipline impact | Recommended |
|---|
| Open panel slot via RFP | Targeted competitive process using rfp-pitch-management (Skill 3) | 8–12 weeks | Procurement time + RFP management | Restores discipline | Yes — if volume justifies panel slot |
| Expand existing firm scope | Formally extend a current panel firm's remit for this work type | 2–4 weeks | None beyond fee agreement | Partial — no competitive check | Interim only — flag for next panel review |
| Matter-by-matter specialist | Retain outside panel for specific matters with GC approval | Immediate | No panel commitment | Erodes discipline — step-outs normalised | No — temporary only; cap at [N] matters |
| Do nothing | Absorb via unmanaged step-outs | None | Hidden — ongoing premium + data gap | Undermines panel governance | No |
Recommendation: [Recommended option with 2–3 sentence rationale, including volume threshold that would trigger escalation to a full RFP if the interim route is chosen.]
If proceeding to panel RFP: produce a Panel Refresh Brief (Mode 4), then pass to rfp-pitch-management (OCM Skill 3) to execute the competitive process.
Gap classification reference
| Gap type | Description | Leading indicators |
|---|
| Practice area gap | Panel does not include a firm with relevant practice area or sub-practice expertise | Consistent step-outs in a specific work type; GC or supervising counsel routinely naming firms outside the panel for specific matters |
| Geographic gap | Panel does not include a firm with the required jurisdiction presence | Cross-border matters requiring local counsel outside the panel; local jurisdiction step-outs in a specific country or region |
| Tier gap | Panel does not include a cost-appropriate firm for a recurring work type | Over-tiered allocation consistently: Tier A firm used for Tier B or Tier C work because no Tier B/C option exists on panel |
| Capacity gap | Panel firm(s) in a practice area cannot absorb volume | Matter queue delays; panel firm requesting volume relief; instruction refusals from panel firm citing capacity |
Mode 4: Panel Refresh Brief
Produce a Panel Refresh Brief and RFP Scope Note immediately. Do not ask the user to define evaluation criteria, shortlist numbers, or RFP structure before producing the documents. Do not open with a transitional line — begin with the document header. Do not ask clarifying questions. Do not end with a question or an offer. A user asking to fill a panel slot, replace a firm, run a competitive process, or refresh the panel is requesting a Panel Refresh Brief and an RFP Scope Note — produce both documents immediately using the templates below. The Panel Refresh Brief is a scoped input to rfp-pitch-management (OCM Skill 3) — frame it explicitly as a hand-off document. Do not produce an RFP document, evaluation scorecard, shortlist, longlist, or any document that belongs to rfp-pitch-management (Skill 3). If you find yourself producing an RFP or scoring matrix, stop — that is Skill 3's output. This mode produces only the Panel Refresh Brief and RFP Scope Note. Build from what the user has provided. State assumptions inline. Do not substitute [Company] from memory or context — use [Company] as written. The documents are the response. Do not end with a question, 'let me know if...', 'do you want me to...', 'want me to...', or equivalent offer framing.
Input
Slot description: practice area, jurisdiction, tier target, reason for refresh (gap identified in Mode 3, firm exit from Mode 2, or proactive panel rationalisation). Available context: step-out history, D&I requirements, timeline. Minimum viable input is practice area and reason for refresh.
How to run this mode
Your first output must be the Panel Refresh Brief header: **[Company] — Panel Refresh Brief**. Begin there. Do not write anything before this line.
The Panel Refresh Brief is a slot requirements document. It defines what you are looking for and hands the brief to rfp-pitch-management (Skill 3) to execute. It contains: slot specification (practice area, jurisdiction, tier, spend, volume), minimum qualification criteria, proposed evaluation criteria with weights, process parameters, and a hand-off instruction to Skill 3.
The Panel Refresh Brief does NOT contain: firm names, a longlist, a shortlist, market intelligence, a capabilities questionnaire, an RFP document, or an evaluation scorecard. Those are Skill 3 outputs. If you find yourself naming firms or drafting an RFP, stop — you are producing Skill 3 content in the wrong skill.
- Write
**[Company] — Panel Refresh Brief** as your first line. Populate all template fields. State assumptions for any fields where the user has not provided specific input. This document is a direct hand-off into rfp-pitch-management (Skill 3).
- Produce the RFP Scope Note.
- Brief observations may follow both documents. Do not withhold the RFP Scope Note pending additional information. Do not offer to run a subsequent mode. Do not end with 'let me know if...', 'do you want me to...', 'want me to...', or equivalent offer framing.
Panel Refresh Brief template
[Company] — Panel Refresh Brief
Prepared for: rfp-pitch-management (OCM Skill 3)
Date: [Date]
Prepared by: [Legal Ops / Relationship Manager name]
Purpose: [Fill coverage gap — [practice area / jurisdiction]] / [Replace exited firm — [practice area coverage]] / [Panel rationalisation — consolidate from [N] to [N] providers in [practice area]]
Slot to fill:
- Practice area: [Practice area]
- Sub-practice / specialisation: [Describe if relevant — e.g., 'cross-border restructuring with insolvency overlay' / N/A]
- Jurisdiction(s): [List]
- Tier target: [Tier A — full-service / Tier B — specialist or mid-market / Tier C — ALSP or process provider]
- Estimated annual spend: [£/$/€ range if known] / [Unknown — to be assessed in RFP]
- Estimated matter volume: [High (>20 matters/year) / Medium (5–20/year) / Low (<5/year)] / [Unknown]
Minimum qualification criteria:
- [Practice area capability — describe specific requirement]
- [Jurisdiction coverage — list jurisdictions required]
- [Firm size / tier — state requirement]
- [Any specific capability requirement — named deal experience, regulatory overlay, language requirement]
- [D&I baseline — if applicable: minimum [N]% diverse timekeepers on matters / diverse firm ownership requirement]
Evaluation criteria (proposed):
| Criterion | Proposed weight | Notes |
|---|
| Technical capability | [30–40%] | Practice area depth; named experience in relevant matter type |
| Commercial approach | [20–30%] | Fee structure; AFA willingness; rate position relative to panel |
| Staffing and resourcing | [15–20%] | Partner access; team continuity; leverage model |
| Relationship and communication | [10–20%] | Responsiveness; reporting cadence; business alignment |
| D&I | [5–10%] | Diverse staffing on matters; firm D&I credentials; panel D&I targets |
| Innovation | [5–10%] | AI capability; process improvement; secondment or value-add offer |
Adjust weights for this slot based on the primary driver. If cost is the primary driver for adding this firm, weight Commercial approach higher. If the gap is driven by a capability need, weight Technical capability higher.
Process parameters:
- Shortlist target: [N] firms to RFP, [N] firms to shortlist, [N] firm(s) to appoint
- D&I requirement: [Minimum [N] diverse firm(s) in shortlist / Apply panel D&I targets] / [Not specified]
- Target appointment by: [Date] / [No fixed deadline]
- Incumbent advantage: [None — open competition / Existing relationship with [firm type] — manage conflict if inviting]
Context for the RFP process:
[2–3 sentences on why this slot is open — exit basis if applicable, step-out history, business driver. Frame in neutral terms: coverage need, not a characterisation of an exited firm's performance. This context is for the internal RFP team, not for distribution to firms invited to pitch.]
Hand-off instruction: Pass this brief to rfp-pitch-management (OCM Skill 3) — Mode 1 (RFP Design) to build the RFP, or Mode 3 (Shortlist Recommendation) if firms have already submitted responses and evaluation has begun.
RFP Scope Note template
[Company] — Panel Refresh: RFP Scope Note
To: [GC / Legal Ops Director]
Slot: [Practice area / Tier / Jurisdiction] | Date: [Date]
[1 sentence: what the Panel Refresh Brief covers and its purpose.] [1 sentence: recommended process — [N] firms to RFP, target appointment by [date].] [1 sentence: D&I requirement if applicable. Omit if not specified.]
Approval requested: Panel Refresh Brief attached. On approval, proceed to rfp-pitch-management (OCM Skill 3) to run the competitive process.
Domain Knowledge — Reference Framework
The annual review cycle
The panel review is the annual moment when data collected across the year — scorecards (Skill 7), billing compliance records (Skill 6), matter allocation patterns (Skill 5), and step-out logs — is synthesised into a panel-level view. Panel governance does not stop after selection. The review is the governance mechanism.
Data inputs to a complete panel review:
| Input | Source skill | What it surfaces |
|---|
| Per-matter scorecard results | performance-scorecard Skill 7 | Performance tier per firm per matter type |
| Post-matter feedback aggregated | performance-scorecard Skill 7 Mode 2 | Relationship health; attorney satisfaction |
| QBR outcomes | performance-scorecard Skill 7 Mode 3 | Commitments made; improvement trajectory |
| Billing compliance rate | invoice-review-compliance Skill 6 | OCG adherence; systemic non-compliance |
| Matter allocation patterns | matter-allocation-instruction Skill 5 | Right-sourcing adherence; step-out frequency |
| Step-out log | Internal tracking | Coverage gap signal; panel discipline indicator |
A panel review conducted without scorecard data defaults to impressionistic assessment — relationship satisfaction, partner familiarity, and seniority of the firm. This is how panels grow through accretion rather than design, and why most in-house teams have too many firms.
The step-out problem
Step-outs — instructing firms outside the panel for a specific matter — are the primary leading indicator that something is wrong with the panel. High step-out frequency (> 15% of matters) signals one of three things:
- Coverage gap: The panel does not include a firm with the required expertise or geography. The fix is Mode 3 (Gap Analysis) → Mode 4 (Refresh Brief) → rfp-pitch-management (Skill 3).
- Underperforming panel firm: A panel firm exists for this work type but supervising counsel are routing around it. The fix is Mode 1 (Panel Health Assessment) → performance-scorecard Skill 7 → improvement plan or Mode 2 (Exit Management).
- Panel discipline failure: Supervising counsel are instructing preferred relationships rather than panel firms, regardless of panel coverage. The fix is panel governance reinforcement — update outside counsel guidelines (Skill 1) and matter-allocation-instruction (Skill 5).
Step-outs are not inherently wrong. GC approval for a step-out on a specific matter is appropriate. What is wrong is habitual, unapproved step-outs in a practice area the panel is supposed to cover. That pattern costs money (premium rates outside negotiated panel agreements), destroys data quality (step-out matters are invisible in panel performance metrics), and signals that the panel is not serving the business.
Panel size discipline
Most in-house teams have too many firms. Panels grow through accretion — a firm is added for a specific transaction and never removed; a partner relationship is grandfathered into the panel without competitive assessment; a second firm is added in a practice area where the first firm performs adequately.
An over-populated panel has predictable consequences:
- Spend is fragmented across too many firms, reducing negotiating leverage for rate agreements and AFAs
- Performance data is thin per firm, making scorecard assessment unreliable
- Relationship management load on legal ops exceeds capacity — QBRs are skipped, feedback is not collected
- Step-outs are harder to identify against a large, loosely-defined panel
The annual review is the mechanism for rationalisation. The question to ask about every panel firm: if this firm were not on the panel, what would we do differently? If the answer is "nothing — we'd use one of the other firms in this practice area," the firm is a candidate for exit or non-renewal.
Panel size guidance by department size:
| Department size | Practice areas covered | Suggested panel size range |
|---|
| Small (<5 lawyers) | 2–4 core practice areas | 3–6 firms |
| Mid-size (5–15 lawyers) | 4–8 practice areas | 6–12 firms |
| Large (15+ lawyers) | 8+ practice areas, multi-jurisdiction | 12–20 firms (with tiering) |
These are indicative ranges, not targets. The right panel size is the smallest number of firms that provides adequate coverage, competitive leverage, and panel discipline.
Firm exit — political sensitivity
Exiting a firm that has a long-standing personal relationship with the GC or a senior supervising counsel is different from exiting a firm that has simply underperformed. The exit documentation must be defensible — factually grounded, procedurally appropriate, and written with the assumption that the firm's leadership will read it carefully.
What makes an exit defensible:
- An improvement plan was issued with measurable targets and a defined timeframe, and those targets were not met
- Or the exit basis is structural (coverage rationalisation, panel refresh) rather than performance, and the notice is written accordingly
- The Internal Exit Record documents the basis, the prior improvement plan history, and GC approval
- The exit notice does not characterise the firm's performance negatively beyond the factual basis for the decision
What makes an exit difficult:
- No prior improvement plan where performance is the basis — the firm can credibly argue it was not given the opportunity to improve
- Inconsistent application — other firms in a similar position were retained
- Exit notice that reads like a complaint rather than a formal notification
- GC approval not obtained before notice is issued
The [Firm] placeholder in the Firm Exit Notice is a deliberate review gate — not a memory-bleed protection placeholder. The user must review and sign off on the firm-specific language before the notice is sent. This is a Type 2 deliberate review gate: it stays as [Firm] in the document even when the firm name is known in session.
Action consequence framework
Panel recommendations without consequences do not change panel composition. The consequence framework is what turns a scorecard into a governance tool.
| Performance tier | Action | Timeline | Escalation trigger |
|---|
| Tier 1 | Retain | Next annual review | None |
| Tier 2 | Retain | Next annual review | Drop to Tier 3 → Watch |
| Tier 2–3 borderline | Watch | 6-month interim check | Confirmed Tier 3 → Improvement Plan |
| Tier 3 | Improvement Plan | 6-month window with targets | Targets not met → Exit Review |
| Tier 4 | Improvement Plan or direct Exit Review | Immediate — do not defer to annual cycle | Second Tier 4 cycle → Exit |
An improvement plan is a formal document, not a conversation. It defines: the criteria on which the firm is underperforming, the current score and the target score, the timeframe (typically 6 months), the review mechanism (QBR mid-point check), and the consequence if targets are not met. Without this formality, the improvement plan is not a defensible step before exit.
D&I as a panel criterion
At Early maturity: D&I is not typically a structured panel criterion. The review may note whether diverse firms are represented but does not set targets.
At Intermediate maturity: D&I is a consideration in panel assessment and in firm selection. Diverse firms are encouraged but not mandated. The annual review may surface D&I as a watch point for over-representation of majority firms.
At Advanced maturity: D&I is a formal panel criterion. Diverse supplier targets are set (e.g., minimum [N]% of panel slots or minimum [N]% of spend to diverse firms). Matter-level D&I data (diverse timekeeper hours as % of total) is collected and incorporated into the scorecard. Failure to meet D&I targets is a performance trigger.
The skill surfaces D&I at the maturity level appropriate to the user's context. It does not impose Advanced-level D&I requirements on Early-stage teams.
Cross-skill data flow — panel review cycle
engagement-terms-billing-guidelines (Skill 1)
→ Sets OCG standards
→ invoice-review-compliance (Skill 6) enforces against invoices
→ Compliance rate feeds panel-review-rationalisation (Skill 8) Mode 1
matter-allocation-instruction (Skill 5)
→ Records step-outs and right-sourcing decisions
→ Step-out log feeds panel-review-rationalisation (Skill 8) Mode 1 and Mode 3
performance-scorecard (Skill 7)
→ Collects per-matter feedback and QBR outcomes
→ Scorecard tier per firm feeds panel-review-rationalisation (Skill 8) Mode 1
panel-review-rationalisation (Skill 8) — this skill
→ Mode 1: synthesises all above into panel-level recommendations
→ Mode 2: manages exits
→ Mode 3: identifies gaps → Mode 4: scopes competitive process
rfp-pitch-management (Skill 3)
→ Receives Mode 4 Panel Refresh Brief as input
→ Executes competitive process to fill the identified slot
panel-design-selection (Skill 2)
→ Defines original structure and criteria
→ Receives Mode 1 output as input to structural panel decisions
