

Angle
Combat Rate Inflation With Proven Rate Management Controls
- Legal Billing and Spend Solutions
- 1 min
Key Takeaway: Legal departments contending with surging law firm billing rates can control costs through spend management strategies like standardizing rate increases, strict outside counsel guideline (OCG) enforcement, and data-driven invoice review. A case in point is United States Steel Corporation, which shows how disciplined rate management drives savings and improves budget predictability in a rising rate environment.
Increasing matter volumes are leading corporate legal departments to rely on outside counsel for support while law firm rates continue to rise exponentially. As a result, legal teams must rethink spend management to stay ahead of budget pressures.
According to Brightflag’s Hourly Rates in Am Law 100 Firms 2025 Edition “The blended hourly rate among the Am Law 100 rose by 8.3% in 2025, reaching US$1,145 per hour.” This trend continues to create significant budgetary challenges for clients across industries.
Why Fewer Policy Exceptions Lead to Better Outcomes
United States Steel Corporation has emerged as a standout example of cost control through disciplined rate management. By setting a standardized cadence for rate increases up front, they make the expectations clear: firms can either align with the structure or walk away. This clarity creates immediate leverage and has helped them drive consistent compliance across their outside counsel network.
Rate increases are aligned with a fixed annual window, requiring submissions before January 15 each year. This system creates predictability for budgeting, reduces last-minute rate shuffles, and simplifies the evaluation process for outside counsel and internal finance teams.
A key component of this strategy is embedded in their outside counsel guidelines (OCGs). US Steel revised its guidelines to include specific provisions defining both the timing and amount of allowable annual rate increases. Strict enforcement, when applied consistently and with very few exceptions, removes ambiguity, eliminates case‑by‑case negotiation, and reinforces that the guidelines are operational rules, not suggestions.
Over time, this discipline changes behavior. Firms submit fewer exceptions, internal reviews move faster, and rate management becomes predictable rather than reactive. The result is sustained cost control without repeated friction.
Set Expectations Before Rates Are Submitted
US Steel also issues an annual letter to firms outlining priorities, expectations, and caps on rate increases for the following year. This upfront clarity shortens, and often eliminates, negotiation time, because firms know the structure in advance and can either align or opt out.
The letter specifies a deadline for submitting any rate increases in their e-billing system of record. Any exceptions to this rule require written justification and are not approved on an ad hoc basis.
Previously, firms would request multiple rate hikes per year, making budgeting a challenging and unpredictable process. By establishing a consistent rhythm and clear expectations, US Steel has brought order to what was once a chaotic process.
Why Enforcement Works Better With a Partner
Beyond improving compliance, having a trusted partner manage first‑line review preserves the client-firm relationship. It removes the tension that can arise when in‑house teams must repeatedly challenge invoices or enforce guidelines. This ensures that firms receive consistent, impartial feedback rooted in documented standards. A partner also strictly and consistently enforces OCGs, eliminating exceptions and removing subjectivity from the process.
Timothy Cornetti, Esq., Associate General Counsel at US Steel, emphasizes the importance of proactive, clear communication and a consistent approach, stating that “quarter over quarter and year over year, outside firms and suppliers adjust and adhere to your requirements. Having a skilled partner to serve as our first line of review has created real value for my company.”
Preserve Quality While Controlling Cost With Right-Sourcing
US Steel further reinforces its rate discipline through deliberate right‑sourcing, aligning work complexity with the appropriate provider. Lower‑risk and routine matters are routed to smaller regional firms and Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSPs), while premium firms are reserved for high‑stakes, high‑exposure work. This approach reduces reliance on top‑tier rates where they are not required without compromising outcomes.
Beyond lowering the average blended rate, right‑sourcing gives the legal department greater operational control. Matters are assigned based on risk, complexity, and business impact rather than default firm relationships. That clarity strengthens planning, improves predictability, and ensures legal spend aligns with the value of the work being performed.
This practice also improves transparency across the firm ecosystem. Outside counsel understand what types of matters they are likely to receive and how their pricing fits within the broader model. This reduces friction, limits rate escalation pressure, and creates more grounded conversations about scope, staffing, and cost.
What It Takes To Win Against Rate Inflation
US Steel’s experience shows that rate inflation is not inevitable. A clear cadence for rate submissions, strict enforcement of OCGs, and disciplined right‑sourcing creates predictable savings without compromising outcomes.
Just as important, partnering with a trusted reviewer ensures those standards are enforced consistently, protecting firm relationships while removing friction from the process. Together, rate management transforms into a repeatable, confidence‑building discipline that positions legal departments for long‑term control in a rising rate market.
Learn More about Epiq Legal Spend Management services.

Tanya Crosse, Director, Legal Spend Management, Epiq
Tanya Crosse leads a team of experts who advise legal departments on managing their outside counsel spend. She has over 20 years of experience in the legal industry as a managing and in-house lawyer, insurance industry expert, and legal spend analyst.
The contents of this article are intended to convey general information only and not to provide legal advice or opinions.