Claim Management Pathways are predefined handling models that dictate how different categories of claims are managed from intake to resolution.

Within the Disputes Line, they translate claim categorisation into repeatable execution standards, ensuring disputes are handled with the right level of quality, control, and intensity for their type.

The objective is not uniformity for its own sake.

It is proportional excellence: ensuring each claim receives the appropriate level of legal sophistication, escalation, and scrutiny - no more, no less.

This is where disputes management decisively moves from artisanal craft to industrial design.

Claim Management Pathways apply to all disputes once categorised.

They define how a claim is handled, not just who handles it.

◼️Pathway Definition: establishes standard handling models by claim category.

◼️Quality Thresholds: defines the minimum acceptable standard of handling for each pathway.

◼️Escalation Logic: prescribes when and how matters move up in severity or oversight.

◼️Settlement Posture: embeds default resolution strategies by category.

◼️Resourcing Model: aligns legal seniority and effort to claim type.

◼️Counsel Involvement: defines when external firms are justified versus prohibited.

◼️Governance Controls: sets approval and oversight requirements per pathway.

◼️Outcome Standards: defines what “good” looks like at resolution for each category.

Not all disputes deserve the same quality threshold.

That statement makes some lawyers uncomfortable - but it is undeniably true.

◼️A low-value operational complaint does not justify the same evidentiary depth, seniority, or governance as a precedent-setting regulatory dispute.

◼️A bet-the-company claim demands a level of scrutiny that would be wasteful - and paralysing - if applied universally.

Artisanal disputes management treats quality as subjective and situational.

Industrial disputes management defines quality in advance, by category.

Claim Management Pathways are how you:

◼️Preserve high quality where it matters, and

◼️Avoid performative lawyering where it doesn’t.

This is not about lowering standards.

It is about deploying standards intelligently.

The Claim Management Pathways 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 Management Pathway framework exhibits the following characteristics:

◼️Category-Coupled Design: each pathway is explicitly tied to a recognised claim category.

◼️Quality-by-Design: quality standards are designed into the pathway, not left to judgement.

◼️Default Resolution Bias: each pathway has a preferred resolution posture.

◼️Escalation Predictability: movement between pathways is rules-based, not political.

◼️Effort Calibration: avoids over-lawyering simple claims and under-lawyering serious ones.

◼️Governance Proportionality: oversight increases with risk, not with noise.

◼️Counsel Discipline: external lawyers are used deliberately, not reflexively.

◼️Evidence Standards: defines how much fact-finding is “enough” for each pathway.

◼️Outcome Consistency: similar claims reliably reach similar outcomes.

Claim Management Pathways deliver the following value to the business:

◼️Outcome Consistency: similar disputes are handled and resolved in similar ways.

◼️Quality Assurance: critical disputes receive the depth of handling they deserve.

◼️Cost Proportionality: spend aligns with risk, not emotion or escalation pressure.

◼️Faster Resolution: low-complexity claims move quickly without unnecessary friction.

◼️Management Confidence: leaders know disputes are being handled appropriately.

◼️Reduced Escalation Noise: fewer disputes reach senior management unnecessarily.

◼️Commercial Alignment: resolution strategies reflect business priorities by claim type.

◼️Reputational Control: sensitive matters receive heightened scrutiny and care.

◼️Predictable Experience: the business knows what to expect when disputes arise.

Claim Management Pathways deliver the following value to the legal department:

◼️Execution Clarity: lawyers know how a claim should be handled from day one.

◼️Reduced Cognitive Load: fewer bespoke decisions on routine matters.

◼️Better Use of Seniority: senior lawyers focus on disputes that justify their involvement.

◼️Counsel Governance: clearer justification for when firms are engaged.

◼️Defensible Decisions: Legal can explain why a claim was handled a certain way.

◼️Operational Scalability: dispute volumes can increase without proportional headcount growth.

◼️Training Leverage: pathways double as practical training tools.

◼️Professional Credibility: Legal demonstrates disciplined, systems-based judgment.

◼️Burnout Reduction: fewer unnecessary “all hands” disputes.

This Station is essential for:

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

◼️Mixed-Risk Portfolios: businesses managing both minor claims and major litigation.

◼️Decentralised Legal Teams: functions needing consistent handling across locations.

◼️Spend-Constrained Departments: teams under pressure to justify every dollar.

◼️Customer-Facing Businesses: organisations exposed to complaints and service disputes.

◼️Board-Visible Risk Profiles: disputes with reputational or precedent impact.

◼️Transformation Programs: teams moving from reactive to managed disputes models.

◼️Maturing Legal Functions: departments seeking operational credibility.

Where Claim Management Pathways are absent or weak:

◼️Artisanal Drift: every dispute is treated as bespoke, regardless of similarity.

◼️Over-Lawyering: simple claims consume disproportionate legal effort.

◼️Under-Protection: serious disputes are mishandled until too late.

◼️Escalation Inflation: too many matters reach senior Legal and executives.

◼️Inconsistent Outcomes: similar claims resolve very differently.

◼️Counsel Overuse: firms are instructed “just in case.”

◼️Decision Paralysis: teams debate approach instead of executing.

◼️Capacity Waste: Legal time is spent where it adds little value.

◼️Credibility Erosion: Legal appears inconsistent or arbitrary.

Claim Management Pathways are essential to effective disputes technology.

In particular, they enable:

◼️Automated Routing: claims are directed to the correct pathway at intake.

◼️Workflow Enforcement: systems guide users through category-specific steps.

◼️AI-Assisted Assessment: tools suggest likely pathways based on claim features.

◼️Escalation Triggers: automatic movement between pathways when thresholds are met.

◼️Spend Controls: budgets and approvals aligned to pathway rules.

◼️Evidence Management: proportional evidence collection by pathway.

◼️Litigation Readiness: higher-risk pathways activate e-discovery and legal hold tools.

◼️Portfolio Reporting: visibility into dispute mix by pathway and outcome.

◼️Continuous Improvement: pathway performance is measurable and optimisable.