27,111
Requests analyzed across a seven-month sample
36
Carried a problem, and the cause pointed inward
3259
Business days: clean request vs problem request
362
Avoidable cost recoverable every cycle
A national law firm blamed its vendor for slow, error-prone records and prepared to bring the work in-house. Then someone read the data, every request, every note, every invoice. What it showed is the subject of this case, and a warning for any firm that has ever waited on records.
The bottleneck no one could see
In a contingency practice, nothing moves until the records and the bills arrive.
The records establish what happened to the client. The bills establish what it is worth. Together they gate the demand letter, the negotiation, the settlement, and the fee. Yet retrieval is treated as clerical work, handed to whoever has capacity. The assumption is that it is simple. It is not.
This firm was unusual in one respect only. Its retrieval ran through a system that recorded everything, every request, every note, every invoice. For once the theory could be checked against the evidence. What the evidence showed was not what the firm expected.
What the data showed
Most requests were sound. Where they failed, the failure was set in motion before the request was worked. Two categories dominated, and both were determined at intake.
EXHIBIT 1 · WHERE REQUESTS WENT WRONG
Share of all requests affected, by problem type
No records / no match
22%
Cancelled after work done
17%
Wrong provider / location
5%
Authorization problems
3%
Signature problems
2%
Wrong name, DOB, dates
2%
Duplicate requests
1%
Firm contacted provider
0.8%
Request quality, not vendor speed, set the clock. Green marks intake-driven failures; steel marks the rest.
Problems nearly double the wait
32
Days · Clean request
59
Days · Request with a problem
The four-week gap was recoverable only at the point the request was created.
What the problems cost
The firm spent about $2.49M on retrieval over the sample. The clearly avoidable share, matched line by line to its own invoices, was about $0.36M, rising to $0.63M when no-records requests are included. Every dollar of it was set in motion before the work began, and most of it recurs every cycle.
| What went wrong | The fix | Recovered |
|---|---|---|
| Cancelled after the work was done | Confirm the case is active before sending | $207K |
| Sent to the wrong provider or place | Verify provider and location at intake | $112K |
| Duplicate and double-billed requests | One request per matter, one channel | $47K |
| Wrong name, date of birth, or dates | A 30-second check before submitting | $45k |
| Recoverable each period | Most of this repeats until the process changes | ~$362K |
What went wrong
Cancelled after the work was done
The fix
Confirm the case is active before sending
Recovered
$207K
What went wrong
Sent to the wrong provider or place
The fix
Verify provider and location at intake
Recovered
$112K
What went wrong
Duplicate and double-billed requests
The fix
One request per matter, one channel
Recovered
$47K
What went wrong
Wrong name, date of birth, or dates
The fix
A 30-second check before submitting
Recovered
$45k
What went wrong
Recoverable each period
The fix
Most of this repeats until the process changes
Recovered
~$362K
Useful information rarely changes behavior. The organizations that act are the ones that grow.
The Records Bottleneck
The economics of build versus buy
Internalizing does not remove the cost. It moves the cost onto the firm, and changes how it is treated.
Keep it with a partner, and fix it
-
Recoverable case cost
Advanced and reimbursed from the client's recovery
-
Transparent, auditable record
Every request and note, independently logged
-
Staff stay on legal work
Capacity goes to cases, not clerical follow-up
-
Working capital carried by the partner
~$903K of provider-fee float, interest-free
Leave it as is, or bring it in-house
-
Unrecoverable overhead
Salaries and tech cannot be billed to a matter
-
Errors visible only inside the firm
Easy to absorb, hard to surface
-
Capacity diverted, settlements slower
~3,256 hours of clerical work, plus the full operation
-
Float falls on the firm
The financing the partner had been quietly carrying
A framework for evaluating retrieval
The case generalizes into questions any firm can apply to its own retrieval.
Ownership
Who holds the relationship?
Does a principal of the firm hold it directly, with a two-way line to the partner?
Accuracy
Who verifies the request?
Only the firm holds the case file, so the check belongs at intake.
Speed
Where is the gap?
What separates a clean request from a problem one, and who can close it?
Recoverability
Cost or overhead?
Is it a billable case cost reimbursed from settlement, or unrecoverable overhead?
Transparency
Is there a record?
An independent, auditable record that tells a process problem from a vendor problem.
Capacity
Whose time?
Does the function consume the time of staff who should be resolving cases?
Read the full case study
The complete 14-page analysis, every exhibit, the methodology, and the per-requester appendix.
About The Records Company
Better records. Better outcomes.
The Records Company is a national medical-record retrieval partner serving legal, insurance, healthcare, and government clients. It pairs disciplined intake with transparent status on every request and a fully auditable record of the work, so clients can see at any moment exactly where each request stands and what it has cost. This case study is based on a real, anonymized client engagement, published for educational purposes.