Read each outside-counsel invoice against the litigation guidelines for that matter, flag entries that don't match, track spend against reserve, and hold every adjustment for the litigation manager who decides.
Prepares the adjustment, not the decision to make it
In
01
An invoice arrives from outside counsel, and the agent pulls the guideline set for that matter.
02
A matter opens, and the agent maps entries, task codes and expense lines against the guideline.
Reason
03
Each entry is compared to the guideline provision it falls under, not judged on its own.
04
The guideline applies only once the matter's jurisdiction is confirmed to enforce it.
05
Every flagged entry is bound to the guideline clause and the invoice line it was read against.
Decide
06
Spend against the matter's litigation budget and reserve is tracked using the erosion rule the policy sets.
07
The flagged review is routed to the litigation manager, with any reservation-of-rights conflict escalated separately.
Out
08
The entry, the guideline it was read against, the adjustment reason and the consent record stay on the matter.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent prepares the flagged review and its reason; the litigation manager decides on any adjustment, and outside counsel is told and can dispute it.
Example workflow
One invoice, receipt to adjustment
AgentHuman
1Invoice receivedOutside-counsel invoice, matter number and the guideline set that applies to it
2Context assembledTime entries, task codes, expense lines, reserve and the matter's guideline, each with a source
3Review draftedFlagged entries, proposed adjustment, reason and confidence
4Controls appliedGuideline-match checks, budget-and-reserve checks, privileged-narrative handling and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and no adjustment is made at any of them — the agent is drafting the review, and the manager's lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the litigation manager to decide.
Low confidence
Adds a legal-ops read before the decision.
Manager review
The review is held with its flagged entries, the guideline and the confidence.
Approve · Edit · Escalate for conflict review
Approved — counsel notified▼
6Matter record updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedAdjustment accuracy, dispute outcomes, reserve movement and post-adjustment corrections
Edits
Every manager edit before the decision is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Adjusting, reducing or rejecting an invoice line.
Withholding or releasing payment to outside counsel.
Setting or approving the matter's litigation budget.
Instructing counsel on strategy, staffing or how to litigate the matter.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Read each invoice against the guideline that applies.
✓Track spend against the matter's litigation budget and reserve.
✓Flag entries that do not match the applicable guideline provision.
✓Prepare the adjustment and its reason, and hold it.
Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of the decision.
Deciding a coverage or reservation-of-rights question.
Deciding whether independent counsel is owed.
Sending detailed invoices to a bill-review vendor absent documented insured consent.
Changes to the guideline library or adjustment thresholds.
Example output
One entry in the invoice, annotated
Everything the agent flags is attached to the guideline it was read against.
Invoice-review output · single invoiceIllustrative example
Matter
Flagged entry
Stated amount
Guideline clause
Confidence
Attribution
Products-liability defence, RoR matter
Two associates billed the same deposition prep on the same day
$1,240.00
Block-billing guideline
89%
Litigation manager of record
As receivedTaken from the invoice and the guideline citation given — nothing on this side is written by the agent.
Guidelines appliedBlock-billing clauseTask-code requirementPrior invoice history
Why this flagIt states what the guideline requires, not a judgment on the work.
ActionApproveEditEscalate for conflict review
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold, the review picks up a legal-ops read before the manager sees it.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every invoiceFrom the matter record
03Review
Read against the guideline
Draw on the guideline that applies and the matter's configured budget and reserve rules.
01Approved path
The insured is the client
Routine entries that match the guideline are cleared without a flag.
02Human review
Point the manager at what
Entries that don't match the guideline are flagged, so review starts where spend is at risk.
04Build an evidence trail
The entry, the guideline it was read against and the manager who adjusted it stay on the matter.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
A portfolio adjustment rate can look controlled while a handful of firms or matter types carry most of the flagged spend. Nestack reports the adjustment-dispute rate by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Matters under a reservation of rights
7.8%
4.0×
Review
Block-billed and grouped time entries
5.3%
2.7×
Review
Expense and vendor pass-through lines
3.5%
1.8×
Watch
Task-coded time inside the guidelines
1.9%
0.8×
Normal
Bar: adjustment-dispute rate lift vs. the task-coded baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick at 2.0×2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Every cycle closes on one more matter
A cycle is closed when the wrong adjustment is a case the next release must survive. That suite is what the next invoice reviewed is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Adjustment-dispute rate rises in a matter slice.
02Diagnose
The line that was cut without anyone telling counsel is traced back through the guideline and the invoice until the cause narrows to one entry.
03Improve
The change ships against a version, with the matters that exposed it attached.
04Verify
Release is blocked until the affected adjustment cases pass again.
05Learn
The case joins the standing suite and the guideline mapping moves with it.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Detection next time runs against a suite one matter longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, guideline sources, review workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Review workflow discovery and scope and boundary definition.
02Matter and e-billing system assessment.
03Guideline library and reserve mapping and rule mapping.
04Invoice ingestion and normalisation.
05Flagging logic and guideline binding.
06Confidence scoring and escalation routing.
07Litigation-manager review workflow.
08E-billing and claims-system integration.
09Adjustment and privilege cases.
10Guardrails and dispute controls.
11Matter-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne guideline set, one matterProductionProduction e-billing systemsAdvancedMultiple guideline sets / firms
Introduced at Pilot
Flagging to your guideline and reserve rules✓✓✓
Manager review✓✓✓
Adjustment-accuracy baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by firm—✓✓
Manager workflow in your systems—✓✓
Approved write-back—✓✓
Matter-system integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-jurisdiction guideline complexity——✓
Multi-stage litigation approvals——✓
High invoice volume——✓
Multi-jurisdiction defence controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, invoice volume, review controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your litigation guideline library and reserve rules→Guideline ingestion and matter mappingWeek 1
02Representative past invoices, including disputes→Flagging baseline and guideline-binding baselineWeek 2
03Your budget thresholds and reserve rules→Guideline library and reserve mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→E-billing and claims-system assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Adjustments you would not want made→Guideline cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no adjustment may be made without→Confidence scoring, escalation routing, guardrails and dispute controlsWeek 3
07Named litigation managers to review flags→Manager review workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Each phase sits over the weeks it really occupies, and week 5 carries evaluation alongside the pilot.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Review workflow discovery, guideline mapping and the automation boundaryW2E-billing and claims-system integration and the flagging baselineW3Flagging workflow, confidence logic and manager-review controlsW4Evaluation suite, privilege-handling checks and failure-mode testingW5E-billing integration, pilot invoices and targeted correctionsW6One billing cycle reviewed under the litigation manager, then handover
Reading the bandA bar covers the weeks its work is named in, and nothing else. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6The last checks clear on live invoices and Agent Care picks up monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Insurance AI agent
Build a legal-bill review agent around your litigation guidelines.
Show us your litigation guidelines, your reserve rules and who decides an adjustment. Not a cost-cutting tool. A guideline match held for the litigation manager, with counsel told and able to dispute it.
