Competitive Bidding Platform for Corporate Legal Teams

  • Role: Lead Product Designer

  • Timeline: 13 Months

  • Company: Wolters Kluwer

  • Product Category: Enterprise B2B SaaS | LegalTech Platform

  • Core Team: Lead Designer (myself), 1 UX Designer, 2 Engineers, and 1 Product Manager

Impact at a Glance

This project streamlined a previously chaotic legal procurement process, bringing order, transparency, and measurable ROI to Fortune 500 legal departments.

  • 20% reduction in time spent managing RFPs

  • 15% increase in user satisfaction (internal survey)

  • Significant cost savings through transparent, competitive bidding

  • Finalist – Global Innovation Awards (LegalTech)

  • Successfully integrated with TyMetrix 360 & Passport with enterprise-grade security

  • Delivered from concept to MVP launch with ongoing Phase 2 enhancements planned

Product Overview

LegalCollaborator is an early firm engagement and competitive bidding platform for legal departments. It helps corporate legal teams engage outside counsel more effectively by:

  • Replacing manual RFPs with a centralized, digital solution

  • Enabling firm comparison beyond just pricing (e.g., staffing, diversity, value)

  • Supporting secure communication, audit trails, and standardized workflows

  • Driving informed legal vendor selection across global departments


The Problem

Legal ops teams were flying blind—too much manual work, not enough insight. That’s where we stepped in.

  • Manual and inconsistent RFP formats via email and spreadsheets

  • No structured way to compare proposals across firms

  • Poor visibility into legal spend, staffing, and outcomes

  • Time-consuming selection and auditing process

  • Lack of diversity and strategy transparency


Research & Discovery

Interviews

We conducted exploratory interviews with over 30 industry expertes with the goal over understanding their pain points with existing tools.

Competitor Analysis

We evaluated four competitors to benchmark LegalCollaborator’s potential differentiators. Names are withheld due to NDA.

Competitor

Comp 1

Comp 2

Comp 3

Comp 4

Strengths

Highly customizable RFP flows, strong DEI tracking, and a large client base

Attorney matchmaking, solid diversity benchmarking

Streamlined workflow, transparency-first user interface

General procurement platform

Weaknesses

Steep learning curve, limited pricing analysis tools

Weak integration with enterprise legal systems

Small customer base, lacks law firm tools.

Poor usability for legal-specific workflows,lacks compliance features.

Identified Opportunities

LegalCollaborator could uniquely position itself by:

  • Blending enterprise-grade integrations with existing Wolters Kluwer Platforms in ELM suited

  • Offering RFP standardizations and customizations

  • Enhancing performance data for post-engagement analytics

  • Providing a secure, DEI-aware platform for both clients and law firms

User Insights Summary

Legal RFP Management Platforms and Exisitng Workflows

  • Fragmented Processes & Tools: Teams currently rely on siloed tools like Microsoft Office, Jira, and SAP Ariba to manage RFPs, which limits collaboration and transparency.

  • Time & Resource Constraints: All personas cite limited time, staffing, or budget as barriers to effective RFP response and pricing strategy execution.

  • Complex Fee Structures & Requirements: Legal pricing and RFP management are hindered by the industry’s non-standardized, highly regulated, and complex billing models.

  • Lack of Centralized Oversight: Internal stakeholders (e.g., attorneys, pricing managers, legal ops) face challenges aligning and responding cohesively to RFPs due to inconsistent information flow and unclear responsibilities.

Round 1 User Testing

  • We utilized our initial concepts to test with users from our client companies.

  • Our goals was gain a deeper understanding of theire formal and informal process while gaining insights of our conceptuals designs.

Initial Concepts

We began developing concepts informed by insights from our existing client base and our understanding of the broader market.

Summary Insights

Draft Legal RFP

  • Initial Impressions: Some users experienced difficulties

  • Findability: Some users had trouble navigating

  • Perceived Value: Most users saw clear value in the RFP drafting and submission process

Summary: Users recognize the value in having a formal way of drafting a proposal, but usability and findability require improvement

Selecting & Inviting Law Firms

  • Initial Impressions: Positive for all users

  • Findability: All users Succeeded

  • Perceived Value: All users found value un the process.

Insights: This is the best-performing flow. Clear, discoverable, and seen as highly valuable.

Proposal Comparison between Firms

  • Initial Impressions: Most users succeeded

  • Findability: Some users struggled

  • Perceived Value: Most users found value.

Insights: This funcationality is valuable, but entry points and interaction design need better clarity

Overall Takeaways

  • Most users see string value in the RFP solution.

  • The biggest barrier is findability of functions, and task clarity, especially when drafting RFPs or negotiating.

  • Improving navigation, labels, and onboarding can enhance usabiliity and completion success

Insights: This funcationality is valuable, but entry points and interaction design need better clarity

Round 2 User Testing

Following round one, research focused on ensuring the updated prototypes were efficient and user-friendly. The goal was to identify which design elements worked well and which needed improvement from the user’s perspective.

Summary Insights

What Users Valued

  • The improved efficiency offered by an integrated solution compared to other RFP tools

  • A comprehensive comparison view for law firms, enabling more informed decision-making

  • Centralized selection process with an enhanced audit trail

  • Seamless communication between clients and law firms throughout the engagement process

  • Customizable, pre-built templates tailored to specific work areas

  • Efficient, intuitive response to requests from a centralized location

  • The seamless integration with matter engagement systems was high valued

  • Workflows from host matter management platforms to legal engagement creation were highly intuitive

  • The comparison dashboard made it intuitive to review law firm proposals, providing clients with the data and visualizations needed to select outside counsel

  • Dashboard visualizations delivered clear, actionable data for management

Pre-Launch Iterations & Agenda

Overall Recommendations

Essential Features

  • Provide the ability to create and export comprehensive reports directly from the dashboard.

  • Enable users to send personalized, customizable email notifications to law firms following their selection.

  • Add an “Export” feature to the law firm comparison page, allowing users to easily download and share comparison data.

  • Ensure that all currency formats and transactions adhere to applicable international financial regulations and compliance standards.

  • Make client guidelines and legal service agreements readily accessible on the law firm comparison screen for easy reference during the selection process.

Recommended Features

  • Allow law firms to upload and attach relevant documents directly within the platform for streamlined information sharing.

  • Revise the color coding scheme for diversity metrics in the team profiles on the comparison page to improve clarity and accessibility.

Optional Features

  • Present a comprehensive legal engagement scope to the law firm immediately after successful completion of the conflict check process.

  • Allow users to provide a company overview to law firms they have not previously engaged with, facilitating better introductions and context.

  • Integrate a pre-populated list of suggested questions into the proposal summary, accessible via a convenient drop-down menu for easy reference and selection.

Business Objective

  • Enable users to add timekeepers directly from the staffing page for greater efficiency and streamlined team management.

Client Flow Map

Law Firm Flow Map

User Personas

User Personas were created based on real data compiled through usability testing of initial concepts, as well as from research gained from clients' use of the existing matter management solutions.

Client Pricing Manager

The Client Pricing Manager works alongside the RFP team.

Law Firm Attorney

Attorneys in law firms offer legal counsel, prepare documents, advocate for clients in court, and oversee cases. They uphold ethical standards and stay current on legal developments within their practice areas.

Legal Ops Director

A Legal Operations Director (Legal Ops Director) collects, analyzes, and translates the legal department's data into actionable insights. Their priorities include managing budgets, overseeing legal matters, improving team member productivity, and coordinating with outside vendors.

Partner (Law Firm)

The Partner's work includes crafting strategic growth plans, fostering client relationships, and leading the team in preparing compelling proposals.

Client Attorney

The role of an Attorney in a company involves providing legal guidance, managing risk, ensuring compliance, negotiating contracts, collaborating with internal stakeholders, overseeing legal affairs, and representing the company's interests. These professionals offer crucial support in navigating complex legal landscapes while safeguarding their organization's objectives.

Law Firm Pricing Manager

A law firm's pricing manager develops and implements pricing strategies, collaborates with legal teams, and ensures transparent, competitive pricing proposals to optimize profitability.

User-Tested High-Fidelity Screens

User Personas were created based on real data compiled through usability testing of initial concepts, as well as from research gained from clients' use of the existing matter management solutions.

Testing & Iterations

What we Heard

  • Users struggled comparing fixed vs. hourly rates

  • Dashboards were overwhelming without clear structure

  • Law firms needed clearer submission formatting

What We Chnaged

  • Added collapsible dashboard sections and smart defaults

  • Introduced tooltips and status tags for better comprehension

  • Imporved filtering and sorting across the comparison views

Technical Challenges

As part of developing LegalCollaborator, we encountered several key technical constraints that had to be addressed to ensure the solution’s success

Data Confidentiality & Compliance

One of the primary constraints was adhering to legal regulations around confidentiality and data governance. We ensured that all data, particularly around competitive pricing and legal strategies, was secured through encrypted communication channels and role-based access control.

This posed a challenge in balancing user experience with stringent security protocols while maintaining ease of use for legal professionals.

System Interoperability

The integration of LegalCollaborator into existing Enterprise Legal Management (ELM) systems (like Passportand TyMetrix 360) required robust interoperability solutions. We worked closely with our engineering team to design solutions that could handle data exchange between disparate systems without compromising performance or user experience.

Scalability & Performance

Given the large volume of RFP submissions and the complexity of legal matters, the platform needed to scale effectively while maintaining fast processing speeds. We optimized the backend architecture to handle high traffic and incorporated performance monitoring tools to continuously ensure system efficiency.

Understanding API Integrations

In developing LegalCollaborator, seamless integrations with other platforms were essential to streamline workflows and ensure efficiency. Some key areas of focus included:

Integration with Client and Law Firm Systems

We worked with the development team as they integrated APIs that allowed data sharing between client legal departments and law firms. This integration facilitated the automatic pulling of pricing data, RFP responses, and legal matter details from both systems, minimizing the need for manual entry and reducing errors.

Third-Party Data Sources

To improve decision-making, we integrated third-party legal analytics APIs to provide users with insights into pricing trends, law firm performance metrics, and market benchmarks. These data sources enhanced the ability of legal departments to make informed choices during the RFP process.

Authentication and Security APIs

Given the sensitive nature of legal data, we used secure OAuth and SAML-based authentication APIs to ensure that users could access the platform securely. This ensured that legal firms could log in using their existing enterprise credentials, maintaining security while streamlining access.

Reflection

Designing in a risk-averse, high-complexity space reminded me that simple, well-researched solutions drive the biggest impact. Trust is the currency—and UX is the bridge.

Deiondrick Roberts

© 2025 Deiondrick Roberts. All rights reserved. 

Deiondrick Roberts

© 2025 Deiondrick Roberts. All rights reserved. 

Deiondrick Roberts

© 2025 Deiondrick Roberts. All rights reserved.