In-house legal teams are under increasing pressure to deliver efficiency and value. One area under scrutiny is how external legal services are sourced.
While the Request for Proposal (RFP) process is often associated with selecting new law firms or building panels, its real power lies in how it can be used more tactically, for individual matters, within an existing panel or preferred firm arrangement. When used thoughtfully, RFPs can drive better outcomes, improve cost predictability, and reinforce strong supplier relationships. When misused, they can delay progress and waste valuable time.
The key lies in knowing when to RFP and when to explore other procurement options.
Why Use RFPs
The RFP process emerged in legal to formalise how external counsel are selected. Inviting firms to submit proposals based on defined scopes and selection criteria allows in-house teams to compare approaches, pricing models and value-added services. It also introduces fairness and auditability into the process.
However, the legal industry still struggles to apply RFPs consistently. Some organisations use them occasionally but without structured processes or clear criteria. Many avoid them entirely, relying on legacy relationships or urgency to justify informal sourcing.
In reality, the most effective teams understand that RFPs are one tool among many. They apply different approaches depending on the risk profile, strategic importance and expected value of the work.
When an RFP is the right tool
- High-value, high-impact matters: Detailed RFPs are ideal for large, strategic instructions. These matters justify the time investment required to scope, run and evaluate a full response.
- Mid-value, moderate impact matters: Conducting mini-RFPs for these matters can quickly establish market price and identify best fit with service providers.
- Long-term or panel relationships: Where the goal is to refresh or build a legal panel, an RFP offers a structured approach to comparing firms across metrics that matter, i.e., pricing models, innovation, use of tech, matter management, and diversity. Done well, it aligns suppliers with broader organisational goals.
- Where transparency is critical: RFPs provide a defensible process that supports audibility and internal reporting. This is particularly important in regulated industries or when procurement has an active involvement with legal spend management.
- When legal wants to shift behaviours: RFPs can be used to challenge established beliefs about pricing, introduce alternative fee arrangements, or test the market for niche expertise. By opening competition, legal teams can signal internal and external change.
When to avoid a full RFP
- Low-value or urgent matters: For routine instructions or time-sensitive issues, the cost of running a formal RFP often outweighs the benefit. Rapid sourcing or direct award through a pre-vetted panel is usually more efficient.
- Niche or highly specialised work: If only a handful of providers globally can do the job, an RFP can be unnecessary. A more targeted approach, such as a Request for Information (RFI) for new providers, or a direct engagement, is more practical.
- When the scope is unclear: If the legal team cannot yet define the scope or expected outcome of the work, consider a preliminary consultation or soft market testing to help shape the requirements.
- When a relationship is already in place: If the work is an extension of an existing matter or continuity of counsel is business critical, running an RFP may introduce unnecessary disruption. However, a benchmarking exercise or pricing refresh might still be appropriate.
A decision-making matrix for in-house teams
To structure the process, consider mapping legal work against three variables: value, complexity, and speed.
Each axis helps determine the most appropriate sourcing route.
| Value | Complexity | Urgency | Suggested Sourcing Approach |
| High | High | Low | Full RFP or mini competition among panel firms |
| High | Low | High | Direct award via panel with pre-agreed rates |
| Low | High | High | Rapid sourcing or ALSP engagement |
| Low | Low | Low | Consider insourcing, automation or workflow tools |
This framework does not replace professional judgement but offers a consistent approach to legal procurement.
Making the RFP process smarter
Where an RFP is the right tool, it should be purposeful, easy to complete, and appropriate for the type of matter. That means:
- Clear scoping: Define the deliverables, timelines and success criteria up front.
- Right-sized process: Match the level of formality to the value of the instruction.
- Data capture: Build in metrics that support reporting, benchmarking and supplier reviews.
Finally, legal teams should treat the RFP process as more than a cost-cutting exercise. It is an opportunity to explore different pricing and delivery models, get the right matter-law firm fit and set expectations with providers.
Conclusion
In-house legal functions are moving from reactive spending to strategic sourcing. Knowing when to RFP is a core part of that shift. For many teams, it’s not about adding more processes, but choosing the right sourcing tool for the specific legal need.
This article was originally published on our sister site lawcadia.com.
