PI Brief Update

Optimisation for Lawyers - Dr Mark Burgin

29/08/25. Dr Mark Burgin is a low cost general expert with an interest in improving legal systems so cases are resolved more efficiently in speed, quality and cost.

Legal cases are complex and there are many pressures on the lawyer. The lawyer must make choices in the case but it is often unclear which are the right choices. Learning to keep all the balls in the air at the same time can feel like an art. But is there a better way of understanding how to find the optimal approaches?

Deciding what to optimise before understanding the options is a classic error. By deciding to prioritise e.g. speed, cost or quality they will inevitably find themselves in a suboptimal situation. As an expert who deals with complex cases I use an approach to explain the choices. This has some parallels with the medical consent process.

There are 5 rules of optimisation which are the trade off, diminishing returns, unexpected benefit, problem solving and stability premium. Each of these rules helps the lawyer avoid the common errors and helps them find more optimal situations. As an expert my role is explain how to understand the options.

Imagine a surface with peaks and troughs you are looking for the lowest point on that surface. This surface (called a Pareto Front) combines all the outcomes so you can explore the effects of options such as more negotiation or more expert evidence or legal time. Pareto Front is like a 3D graph making it easier to see where the ideal points are. 

In simple cases the surface only needs to be imagined but in high value cases such as brain injury it should be formally plotted for instance using Excel. It is usually obvious whether for instance spending more money is likely to solve the problem in simple cases. In more complex cases it may only be obvious that the only solution is to find a more cost effective approach when the Pareto Front has been plotted.

5 rules of optimisation

1. Increasing spending means cuts

This rule, often called the Rule of the Inevitable Trade-off, states that an increase in spending in one area necessitates a decrease in spending or resources in another. This is because resources, whether financial or otherwise, are finite. For example, if a PI department takes on a lot of clinical negligence cases they will not have time for standard PI cases. This concept is a core principle of opportunity cost.

2. The benefits of increased spending is less than the previous spending

This rule is also known as the Rule of Diminishing Marginal Return. It means that as you continue to invest more in a specific area, the additional benefit you receive from each new unit of investment will eventually decrease. For instance, the first £10,000 spent on expert’s reports may generate a significant increase in payout, but the next £10,000 may yield a smaller increase, and so on. The graph illustrating this concept typically shows a curve that becomes less steep over time.

3. Cutting spending can improve the situation

Referred to as the Rule of the Unexpected Benefit, this rule suggests that cutting spending can sometimes lead to an improvement in efficiency, quality, or overall performance. This often happens because the normal approach is expensive and inefficient and there is a newer approach which is better. For instance, specialist experts are rarely able to address all the issues and a low cost generalist will often identify dead ends. This in turn leads to cost savings, improved quality and speed.

4. If an area has problems, spending will never solve those problems

This is the Rule of Fundamental Problem Solving. It posits that if an issue stems from a structural, cultural or managerial flaw, simply throwing more money at it will not fix it. Instead, the root cause must be identified and addressed. For instance, a clinical negligence department that has a low rate of success and slow turnaround will not improve with extra resources. An inhouse expert is necessary to close the knowledge gap.

5. Stability is better than changing

This rule, also called the Rule of the Stability Premium, emphasises the value of maintaining a stable and predictable environment over constant change. Frequent changes in policy, strategy, or funding can create uncertainty, disrupt operations, and erode trust. Any decisions to change should be based upon a clear understanding of the likely benefits and full engagement of the staff.

Optimising a legal case

Most lawyers will start with a legal case by assessing its overall chance of success and how much is likely to cost and the possible levels of quantum. This is a type of basic optimisation and considers the three key areas of quality, speed and cost. Most cases also have elements of complexity making it difficult to investigate every case fully so some will avoid cases that are too complex.

Another approach is to use the 5 rules to decide whether it is worth going further. Whether a cost is bearable at this time, diminishing returns, is there a cheaper solution, previous experience and success in that area. Writing a short report that systematically considers each of the 5 rules can ensure that the correct decision is made.

Optimisation can also be used to save an out-of-control case. It is not uncommon to be assigned a case that another handler has not been able to manage. Stability may be the only option whilst following other rules. Pausing further spending whilst problem solving and looking for better options avoids trying to use money to solve the problem.

Conclusions

The 5 rules of optimisation may feel obvious to legal professionals who will often use the rules in their daily lives. The reality is that most decisions are taken without a proper consideration of where on the Pareto Front they are. Systematically thinking about the 5 rules ensures that decisions are robust and can be explained.

All legal firms should build optimisation into their processes for those dealing with complex injuries having a formal Pareto Front analysis is essential. For most lawyers it would simply be a short report for each case based upon the 5 rules. The manager could then identify cases that are suboptimal and make appropriate changes.

Optimisation also has an unexpected benefit beyond better decision making. Lawyer’s reputation depends on the prestige they are held by clients, the money they can generate and their ability to handle difficult cases. Optimisation provides a methodology for lawyers to manage their workloads, costs and outcomes. The same methodology can be used for advertising and managing financial affairs with implications on the bottom line.

Doctor Mark Burgin, BM BCh (oxon) MRCGP is a Disability Analyst and is on the General Practitioner Specialist Register.

Dr. Burgin can be contacted on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and 0845 331 3304 websites drmarkburgin.co.uk and gecko-alligator-babx.squarespace.com

This is part of a series of articles by Dr. Mark Burgin. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/P_Wei