Claim Categorisation is the structured classification of disputes into defined claim types with shared characteristics.

Within the Disputes Line, it provides the analytical foundation for assigning disputes to appropriate handling pathways, rather than treating every claim as a one-off legal problem.

The objective is efficiency in the fullest sense - not just speed or cost control, but the quality, consistency, and proportionality of how claims are handled across their lifecycle.

At scale, disputes management must move from an artisanal model - where outcomes depend on individual lawyers, instincts, and bespoke handling - to an industrialised model, where repeatable claim types are managed through deliberately designed pathways that deliver predictable quality and outcomes.

This Station is the inflection point where disputes stop being “crafted” matter by matter and start being engineered as a system.

Claim Categorisation applies to all claims and potential disputes escalated to Legal.

It focuses on classifying matters early so they can be managed consistently, efficiently, and in line with risk appetite.

◼️Category Definition: establishes recognised dispute types based on risk, complexity, and behaviour.

◼️Early Classification: assigns matters to categories at intake or early triage stage.

◼️Pathway Alignment: links each category to a predefined claims handling pathway.

◼️Complexity Calibration: distinguishes low-value noise from strategic litigation.

◼️Settlement Posture: informs whether early resolution, negotiation, or litigation is preferred.

◼️Resource Allocation: aligns legal effort and seniority to claim type.

◼️Spend Expectations: sets baseline cost profiles by category.

◼️Portfolio Analysis: enables pattern recognition across dispute types.

While each organisation should define categories aligned to its own dispute profile, commonly recognised categories include:

◼️Low-Value Operational Claims – routine issues suited to rapid resolution.

◼️Contractual Interpretation Disputes – matters driven by clause ambiguity.

◼️Performance & Delivery Claims – disputes arising from execution failures.

◼️Payment & Pricing Disputes – claims focused on fees, charges, or adjustments.

◼️Conduct & Behaviour Claims – allegations relating to conduct or treatment.

◼️Regulatory & Compliance-Linked Disputes – matters with regulator visibility.

◼️Strategic / Precedent Matters – disputes requiring litigation to defend position.

◼️High-Value / Bet-the-Company Claims – matters with material enterprise impact.

Each business should refine the number and definition of categories based on dispute volume, risk appetite, and operational reality.

The Claim Categorisation station is considered a Foundational resource within the GLS Legal Operations model.

A Foundational Resource: Is responsible for determining the overall performance capabilities of a “critical” legal function. If it is not optimised, the function can never be optimised. 

A best-practice Claim Categorisation framework exhibits the following characteristics:

◼️Limited Core Categories: avoids over-engineering by focusing on a small number of meaningful types.

◼️Clear Classification Rules: defines objective criteria to prevent subjective categorisation drift.

◼️Early Assignment: categorises claims before strategy and spend decisions are made.

◼️Pathway Coupling: links each category to a standard handling and escalation pathway.

◼️Settlement Logic: embeds typical resolution posture by category.

◼️Flexibility Controls: allows justified re-categorisation as facts evolve.

◼️Data Consistency: ensures categories are applied consistently across teams and matters.

◼️Business Alignment: reflects how disputes actually arise in the organisation.

◼️Scalable Design: works across low-volume strategic disputes and high-volume claims.

Claim Categorisation delivers the following value to the business:

◼️Predictable Handling: ensures similar disputes are treated consistently.

◼️Cost Efficiency: avoids over-lawyering low-risk claim types.

◼️Faster Resolution: accelerates handling through predefined approaches.

◼️Outcome Control: aligns resolution strategy with commercial objectives.
 
◼️Reduced Variability: limits outcome differences driven by individual judgement.

◼️Spend Forecasting: improves predictability of dispute costs by category.

◼️Management Confidence: provides clarity on how different disputes will be handled.

◼️Portfolio Visibility: enables leadership to see where disputes are really coming from.

◼️Risk Prioritisation: focuses attention on dispute types that matter most.

Claim Categorisation delivers the following value to the legal department:

◼️Triage Discipline: prevents all disputes being treated as bespoke matters.

◼️Workload Control: matches legal effort to claim significance.

◼️Process Leverage: enables repeatable handling rather than reinvention.

◼️Counsel Efficiency: aligns external counsel use to appropriate claim types.

◼️Knowledge Reuse: captures lessons learned by dispute category.

◼️Strategic Focus: frees senior lawyers to focus on high-impact disputes.

◼️Consistency Assurance: reduces outcome variance across similar matters.

◼️Reporting Quality: enables meaningful dispute analytics and insights.

◼️Operational Maturity: moves disputes management from craft to system.

This Station is essential for:

◼️High-Volume Claims Environments: organisations handling many similar disputes.

◼️Litigation-Exposed Businesses: companies with recurring dispute themes.

◼️Decentralised Legal Teams: functions where disputes are handled inconsistently.

◼️Cost-Constrained Legal Departments: teams needing efficiency without sacrificing control.

◼️Customer-Facing Organisations: businesses exposed to service, product, or conduct claims.

◼️Contract-Heavy Operations: environments generating repeat contractual disputes.

◼️Transformation Programs: legal teams implementing structured disputes workflows.

◼️Data-Driven Legal Functions: teams seeking insight, not anecdotes.

Where Claim Categorisation is absent or poorly designed:

◼️Over-Lawyering: low-risk disputes receive disproportionate attention.

◼️Inconsistent Outcomes: similar claims are handled differently.

◼️Escalation Bias: matters default to litigation unnecessarily.

◼️Spend Volatility: dispute costs become unpredictable.

◼️Counsel Overuse: external firms are engaged by default.

◼️Reporting Failure: dispute data lacks structure and meaning.

◼️Learning Loss: lessons are not reused across similar matters.

◼️Capacity Drain: Legal time is consumed by avoidable complexity.

◼️Management Frustration: leadership cannot see patterns or priorities.

Claim Categorisation is a prerequisite for effective disputes technology.

In particular, it enables:

◼️Structured Intake Forms: mandatory category assignment at matter creation.

◼️Automated Pathway Routing: directing claims to the correct handling process.

◼️AI-Assisted Classification: using historical data to suggest likely categories.

◼️Early Case Assessment Tools: category-specific assessment templates.

◼️Spend Benchmarks: budget expectations by claim type.

◼️Portfolio Analytics: trend analysis across dispute categories.

◼️Reporting Dashboards: visibility of dispute mix and movement over time.

◼️ELM Optimisation: aligning workflows, approvals, and reporting to categories.

◼️Knowledge Systems: reuse of strategies, documents, and outcomes by type.