Legal Project Management in Disputes

Why Disputes Lawyers Can No Longer Ignore LPM

For years, disputes lawyers resisted Legal Project Management (LPM) – the idea being that “every dispute is different” and, by extension, hard to manage consistently. In their mind, while LPM suited transactional practices, it was ill-fitted to the inherently uncertain world of contentious work. That position is becoming increasingly hard to sustain. Today, the market is sending a clear message: Unpredictability is no longer an excuse for opacity. The imperative for disciplined delivery, driven by sophisticated litigation funders, increasingly budget-conscious clients, and judicial expectations, has elevated LPM, alongside data analytics and purpose-built legal technology, from a ‘nice-to-have’ to a foundational capability for the next decade of disputes practice. This isn’t just about efficiency; it’s about strategic advantage and client retention.`

There are no sacred cows
That caution is now giving way. Leading dispute practices are increasingly using legal project management approaches to manage large, complex litigation and arbitration matters, particularly where cost, duration and risk are under intense scrutiny. What changed? In short: money and demands for efficiency. Litigation funders and repeat-purchaser clients are no longer prepared to underwrite inefficiency or accept limited visibility over spend and progress. Despite long-held perceptions, dispute work has many characteristics that make it highly suited to LPM:

Cost estimates are unavoidable. Whether for court-mandated budgets, damages-based agreements or funder investment committees, disputes increasingly require upfront cost estimates and, critically, active management against them. In England & Wales, for example, a proportion of recoverable costs can be allocated specifically to ongoing costs management (the 2% rule).

The work is highly process-driven. Courts, tribunals, mediations and arbitrations all impose procedural steps, timetables and dependencies. These are, in effect, high-level project plans.

Disputes involve large, multi- disciplinary teams. External counsel, barristers, experts, e-disclosure providers, witnesses and courts or tribunals all need coordination. Without clear coordination, inefficiency quickly follows.

Stakeholders require regular reporting. Clients and funders expect clear, concise updates on progress, spend and merits, not just legal analysis, but actionable management information.

Cost recovery is limited. In jurisdictions such as the US, costs are generally not recoverable. Even in England & Wales, successful parties typically recover only a proportion of their spend. This creates strong incentives to manage costs closely, particularly for lower-value or mid-complexity disputes.

There is rich learning to be captured. Completed disputes generate valuable data on pricing, duration, resourcing and outcomes, which can materially improve future budgeting and strategy if systematically captured and reused.

Don’t forget the funders

Litigation funders, whether they know it or not, have been among the strongest advocates of LPM adoption. They now expect law firms to articulate not just what the legal strategy is, but how it will be delivered efficiently and monitored throughout the life of the case. Disciplined budgeting, active cost management and regular reporting are no longer optional. Matters that demonstrate robust LPM are more likely to secure funding and to retain it as a dispute evolves.

Horses for courses LPM adoption by firms varies: there is not one-size-fits-all model:

Dedicated LPMs. Some firms deploy professional LPMs (often not qualified lawyers) on their largest disputes. This can be highly effective, but even the best-resourced teams typically cover only around 5% of matters by volume. The remaining 95% still need to be managed.

Upskilling lawyers. Many firms are equipping dispute lawyers with project management tools and techniques. This approach scales more effectively but requires a mindset shift, from words to numbers and from reactive problem-solving to planned delivery.

Tech-enabled LPM. A growing number of firms are turning to technology to embed LPM into day-to-day dispute practice. However, dispute-specific tools remain relatively scarce, providing practical, lawyer-friendly ways to plan, track and report on disputes without turning lawyers into project managers overnight.

Hybrid models. The most advanced firms combine all of the above, adopting a pragmatic, cherry-picking approach.

Doing nothing. Always an option, but an increasingly risky one. Over time, firms that rely solely on tradition, “this is the way we’ve always done it”, are likely to lose work to peers who can demonstrate tighter control over cost, risk and delivery.

From craft to control

Disputes will always involve uncertainty. Facts evolve, evidence emerges, opponents behave unpredictably, and courts and tribunals retain wide discretion. But uncertainty is not the same as disorder. LPM does not seek to eliminate judgment, creativity or tactical flexibility. It provides a framework within which those skills can be deployed more deliberately, efficiently and transparently.

What has changed is the economic context in which disputes are run. Litigation funders, sophisticated clients and decision-makers are no longer willing to accept opaque delivery models, loosely monitored budgets or avoidable inefficiency. In that environment, the question for dispute practices is no longer whether LPM is appropriate, but whether they can afford not to adopt it.

For the modern disputes lawyer, this creates a clear dividing line. Being the only person in the room without a plan is no longer a mark of flexibility; it is a competitive weakness. Those who continue to shelter behind the supposed unpredictability of their craft will increasingly find that the market has moved on without them. Disputes practices that embrace LPM intelligently are better placed to manage risk, protect margin and demonstrate value in an increasingly competitive market. They are stronger partners for litigation funders, who are under growing pressure to justify capital deployment and maximise returns. Clients benefit from greater certainty, clearer decision-making and confidence that their dispute is being actively managed, not simply reacted to.

The implications extend beyond individual matters. By making disputes more predictable, transparent and cost-effective, LPM helps lower barriers to litigation and arbitration, supporting access to justice and the efficient operation of courts and tribunals. LPM will not turn disputes into a production line, but it is fast becoming a defining capability of modern dispute practice. Firms that invest in it, embed it and support it with the right people and technology will shape how disputes are run in the next decade. Those who do not risk being shaped by the decisions of others. The call to action is clear. It is time to stop treating disputes as something to be endured and start managing them as the complex projects they are. The lawyers and firms who are already leading this shift will not only protect their margins but also set the standard for the future delivery of dispute work.